NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Parchive.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/... · Fish River...
80
Transcript of NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Parchive.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/... · Fish River...
BLANK PAGE
2004/05
NSW WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
REPORT
Sam Samra Colin McLean Senior Manager Executive Director Water Utility Performance Water Systems
Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability
Head Office Level 17, 227 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 3889, Sydney NSW 2001
Tel: 61 2 8281 7777 Fax: 61 2 8281 7799
www.deus.nsw.gov.au
Hours of business: 8:30am to 5:00 pm Monday to Friday
DEP
OUR VISION
Sustainable, safe, reliable and affordable use and supply of energy and water.
OUR MISSION
Achieve sustainable, safe, reliable and affordable energy and urban water outcomes for the people, economy and environment of NSW through the delivery of policy, regulations and programs.
OUR STRATEGIC GOALS
Á Achieve a continuous improvement in the sustainable use and supply of energy and water
Á Achieve safe, reliable and secure energy and water services
Á Ensure the supply of energy and water is efficient and affordable
Á Invest in the growth of our people and improve our business capacity
â CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006 NEW SOUTH WALES
ISSN 1327-6425
DISCLAIMER Whilst the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability has taken due care in preparation of this report, it accepts no liability for any errors or omissions, nor for any use of the report by any person.
FOREWORD
Performance monitoring and benchmarking are required under National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative, are important for public accountability and have been strongly endorsed by the Independent Pricing and
Regulatory Tribunal1. Performance monitoring is also required for compliance with the Best-Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines.
This 2004/05 Performance Monitoring Report discloses the key performance indicators for all NSW water utilities including Sydney and Hunter Water Corporations over the last 5 years, enabling each utility to monitor trends in its performance indicators and to improve its performance through benchmarking against similar utilities. It also highlights the statewide performance of the NSW non-metropolitan water utilities.
The State Government encourages continuous improvement in performance of the utilities with the aim of improving the quality and efficiency of services to all NSW residents.
The Performance Monitoring Report has been prepared by the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) since 1986 and copies of the report are provided to all NSW water utilities by the Minister for Water Utilities.
The full suite of NSW performance indicators and benchmarking data for water utilities are presented in the comprehensive 2004/05 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Benchmarking Report. The benchmarking report is available on the DEUS website (www.deus.nsw.gov.au/water).
To provide a balanced view of the long-term sustainability of NSW water utilities, a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) accounting focus has been adopted, with performance reported on the basis of social, environmental and economic performance indicators.
NSW Performance Monitoring also provides valuable data for determining the present position and assessing future water supply and sewerage needs for non-metropolitan NSW. This ensures an appropriate focus and targeting of programs to assist the utilities.
1 Pricing Principles for Local Water Authorities, Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, NSW, 1996
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Local Government Association of NSW and the Shires Association of NSW (LGA and SA) are acknowledged for their strong and continuing support for the NSW annual water supply and sewerage performance reporting system since its commencement in 1986.
The contribution of NSW Health is acknowledged for providing additional water quality data (from the NSW water quality database) and water quality monitoring compliance data. This data has been incorporated into Tables 5 and 12 and Appendix D1 of the 2004/05 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Benchmarking Report.
The NSW Local Government Water Directorate is also acknowledged for permitting use of its Technical Guidelines for Drought Management.
The success of the NSW performance reporting system is contingent on full participation by all NSW Local Water Utilities (LWUs). The continuing participation of each LWU in the reporting system and each LWU’s significant efforts in providing current, accurate and timely data on its performance for each of the last 5 years are therefore particularly acknowledged.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
FOREWORD i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v GREEN GLOBE EXCELLENCE AWARDS vii LIST OF WATER UTILITIES viii [Updated September 2006]
1 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 1 1.1 Key Indicators 1 1.2 Interstate Comparisons 9
2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING 10
3 BEST-PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 11 3.1 Best-Practice Management Guidelines 11 3.2 Compliance With Guidelines 13 3.3 Eligibility For Payment Of Dividends 13
4 UTILITY PERFORMANCE 14 4.1 TBL Performance Reports 14 4.2 Best Performing Utilities 15
5 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE 17 5.1 Factors Impacting Performance 18 5.2 Benchmarking 18
6 GENERAL NOTES 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
FIGURES
SOCIAL1 Typical Residential Bill – Water Supply and Sewerage 21 2 Typical Residential Bill – Water Supply 22 3 Typical Residential Bill – Sewerage 23 4 Chemical Water Quality Compliance 24 5 E. coli Water Quality Compliance 25 6 Water Quality Complaints 26 7 Sewage Odour Complaints 27
ENVIRONMENTAL8 Annual Residential Consumption 28 9 Compliance with BOD in Licence 29
10 Compliance with SS in Licence 30 11 Sewer Overflows to the Environment 31 12 Recycled Water 32
ECONOMIC13 Economic Real Rate of Return - Water Supply 33 14 Economic Real Rate of Return – Sewerage 34 15 Operating Cost (OMA) per property – Water Supply 35 16 Operating Cost (OMA) per property – Sewerage 36 17 Operating Cost (OMA) c/kL – Water Supply 37 18 Management Cost per property – Water Supply 38 19 Management Cost per property – Sewerage 39 20 Water Revenue from Usage Charges 40
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 – 2004/05 41 APPENDIX B Example 2004/05 TBL Water Supply Performance Report 47APPENDIX C 2004/05 Compliance with Best-Practice Management 50APPENDIX D 2004/05 NSW Water Utility Performance Summary 54APPENDIX E 2005/06 Water Supply – Residential Charges, Bills, Cost Recovery 58APPENDIX F 2005/06 Sewerage – Residential Charges, Bills, Cost Recovery 61APPENDIX G Definitions 64
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v
The local water utilities in non-metropolitan NSW are continuing to perform well. In particular, the utilities are embracing best-practice management and many utilities are complying with the requirements of the Best-Practice Management Guidelines, as evidenced by the number of utilities with pay-for-use water supply pricing which has increased from 55% two years ago to the current 92%. In addition, 49% of utilities have sound water conservation, 51% have sound drought management and 23% have commenced or completed an integrated water cycle management strategy.
The average annual residential water consumption has fallen to 200 kL/property due to the introduction of pay-for-use water pricing and the implementation of water conservation and demand management by utilities. The Typical Residential Bill (TRB) for water supply and sewerage has remained relatively constant over the last 10 years (the TRB for 2005/06 is $700 per assessment). A high level of water quality compliance has been maintained, with 98% of samples tested for E. coli complying with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
To comply with best-practice management and to provide a balanced view of the long-term sustainability of NSW water utilities, this report provides a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) focus with performance reported on the basis of Social, Environmental and Economic indicators.
Utility Characteristics In July 2004, 107 Local Water Utilities (LWUs) provided water supply and sewerage services to non-metropolitan NSW (ie. excluding Sydney and Hunter Water Corporations). Of these, 98 provided water supply services (including three bulk suppliers - Cobar Water Board, Fish River Water Supply and Rous County Council) while 101 LWUs provided sewerage services.
The population with a piped water supply was 1.8 million (97.7% coverage) and the number of water supply properties (assessments) was 790,000, an increase of 2.6% over the last 12 months. The total water consumption was 335,000 ML. While total water consumption has risen, the average residential consumption per property has fallen due to the application of best-practice management measures by utilities including pay-for-use water pricing and implementation of water conservation and demand management.
The drought in NSW eased over the latter part of 2004/05, however the effects of the drought continue to be felt. 67% of reporting utilities received below average rainfall and 45% implemented water restrictions in 2004/05.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
POPULATION WITH RETICULATED SEWERAGE(millions)
Population with sewerage service – 94.3% of the non-metropolitan urban population (1,680,000 people) had a piped sewerage service in 2004/05.
Since implementation of the new Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program (CTWS&S) in 1996, the population with a piped sewerage service has increased by 220,000 people ie. from 92.3% to 94.3%.
Notwithstanding the influence of the drought, the increased focus by utilities on efficiency and sustainability through best-practice management has resulted in continuing improvement in performance against many indicators.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vi
Social
Á The typical residential bill for water supply and sewerage has remained relatively constant over the last 10 years.
Á A high level of water quality compliance and a low level of water quality complaints have been maintained.
Á Sewage odour complaints and sewerage service complaints have remained low.
Á Median water usage charge has risen to 92c/kL.
Environmental
Á Average annual residential water consumption has fallen from 330 to 200kL/property over the last 14 years.
Á 49% of utilities have implemented sound water conservation.
Á Reuse of recycled water was carried out by 65% of utilities, mostly for agriculture.
Á Compliance with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) sewerage licences was 95% for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 91% for suspended solids (SS).
EconomicThe total turnover for the 107 utilities was $850M and the current replacement cost of their water supply and sewerage assets was $10,800M. 61 of these utilities (57%) were Category 1 businesses under National Competition Policy, having an annual turnover of over $2M for their water supply or sewerage businesses.
92% of utilities had a 2-part tariff or an inclining block tariff in July 2005. 77% of utilities have completed their strategic business plans and long-term financial plans, thus demonstrating long-term financial sustainability of their water supply and sewerage businesses. A further 11% of utilities have prepared draft business plans.
27% of utilities complied with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines for water supply and 14% of utilities complied for sewerage. These utilities were eligible to pay a dividend to the council’s general revenue.
Á Economic real rate of return was 2.2% for water supply and sewerage. This has remained relatively constant over the last 10 years.
Á Operation, maintenance and administration cost (OMA) for water supply and sewerage has increased from $370 to $530 over the last 14 years largely due to more stringent standards for sewage treatment and to increasing management costs.
0
200
400
600
800
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BILLWATER & SEWERAGE ($/assessment)
Typical residential bill – $700/assessment for water supply and sewerage in 2005/06 (Jan 2006$).
This has remained relatively constant in current dollars over the last 10 years. The typical residential bill for water supply has fallen to $330 while the sewerage bill has fallen to $370.
0
100
200
300
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
AVERAGE ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION (kL/property)
Average annual residential consumption –200kL/property which was similar to Hunter Water and Melbourne and was lower than the other Australian utilities.
Average annual residential potable water consumption has fallen by almost 40% (from 330kL/property to 200kL/property) due to introduction of pay-for-use water pricing and implementation of water conservation by LWUs.
GREEN GLOBE EXCELLENCE AWARDS
vii
Best-Performing Utilities The top 10 utilities that have achieved broad compliance with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines and have demonstrated a consistently high level of performance across a wide range of key performance indicators as shown on page 15 of this report. Each of these best performing utilities will be recognised by presentation with a 2006 Green Globe Excellence Award for water supply and sewerage.
Congratulations to the following LWUs. They have been identified as being one of the top 10 performers in 2004/05 for water supply or sewerage.
Water Supply
Á Albury City
Á Coffs Harbour
Á Dubbo
Á Port Macquarie-Hastings
Á Nambucca
Á Riverina
Á Shoalhaven
Á Tamworth Regional
Á Wyong
Á Yass Valley
Sewerage
Á Dubbo
Á Gosford
Á Port Macquarie-Hastings
Á Lismore
Á MidCoast
Á Orange
Á Parkes
Á Shoalhaven
Á Wingecarribee
Á Wyong
Dubbo, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Shoalhaven and Wyong are particularly commended as they are a top performer in both water supply and sewerage.
Pay-for-use Water Supply Pricing The following 9 LWUs are commended for abolishing their annual water allowance and adopting pay-for-use water supply pricing for the 2005/06 financial year:
Carrathool, Cootamundra, Gunnedah, Gwydir, Jerilderie, Liverpool Plains, Wakool, Warren and Young
6 NSW LWUs still have a water allowance and these utilities are planning to abolish their water allowance for the 2006/07 financial year.
LIST OF WATER UTILITIES
viii
NSW Water Utilities This report discloses performance indicators for all NSW water utilities, comprising the 107 non-metropolitan Local Water Utilities (LWUs) together with the 3 metropolitan utilities (Sydney Water, Hunter Water and Hawkesbury Council). All utilities are listed in the table below in alphabetical order. To facilitate comparisons with similar sized LWUs, Appendices C to F of this report are sorted in order of the number of connected properties served. The number shown in the table below with each utility is its rank in terms of connected properties for water supply. For example, the table shows ‘11 Albury City’, indicating that Albury City is the 11th LWU in the water supply tables. LWUs are grouped in four size ranges, namely over 10,000, 3,001 to 10,000, 1,501 to 3,000, and 200 to 1,500 connected properties.
NSW Water Utilities (Non-metropolitan & Metropolitan) in Alphabetical Order
11 Albury City 54 Deniliquin 59 Lachlan 3 Shoalhaven 29 Armidale Dumaresq 18 Dubbo 48 Leeton 35 Singleton
64 Dungog (R) 22 Lismore (R) 52 Snowy River 24 Ballina (R) 31 Lithgow Sydney Water
100 Balranald (DS) 15 Eurobodalla 61 Liverpool Plains 21 Bathurst Regional 102 Lockhart (NO WS) 13 Tamworth Regional 23 Bega Valley 12 Fish River WS (BS) 69 Temora (NO WS) 47 Bellingen 51 Forbes 5 MidCoast 68 Tenterfield 53 Berrigan (DS) 32 Mid-Western Regional 93 Tumbarumba 72 Bland (NO WS) 84 Gilgandra 38 Moree Plains 43 Tumut78 Blayney (NO WS) 60 Glen Innes Severn 65 Murray (DS) 6 Tweed 89 Bogan 82 Gloucester 101 Murrumbidgee 97 Bombala 28 Goldenfields (NO SGE) 41 Muswellbrook 45 Upper Hunter
104 Boorowa 1 Gosford 73 Upper Lachlan 87 Bourke (DS) 20 Goulburn Mulwaree 34 Nambucca 85 Uralla
105 Brewarrina 80 Greater Hume 46 Narrabri 107 Urana (NO WS) 27 Byron (R) 30 Griffith 63 Narrandera
94 Gundagai 62 Narromine 9 Wagga Wagga (NO WS) 91 Cabonne 44 Gunnedah 88 Wakool (DS) 92 Carrathool 90 Guyra 83 Oberon (R) 98 Walcha
103 Central Darling (DS) 81 Gwydir 19 Orange 79 Walgett (DS) 40 Central Tablelands 96 Warren (DS)
(NO SGE) 76 Harden (R) 71 Palerang 55 Warrumbungle 14 Clarence Valley 30A Hawkesbury (NO WS) 36 Parkes 95 Weddin (NO WS) 67 Cobar (R) 86 Hay (DS) 7 Port Macquarie-Hastings 57 Wellington 66 Cobar WB (BS) Hunter Water 74 Wentworth (DS) 10 Coffs Harbour 17 Queanbeyan (R) 16 Wingecarribee 99 Coolamon (NO WS) 37 Inverell 2 Wyong50 Cooma-Monaro 33 Richmond Valley 75 Coonamble 106 Jerilderie (DS) 8 Riverina (NO SGE) 56 Yass Valley 58 Cootamundra (R) 77 Junee (NO WS) 4 Rous (BS) (NO SGE) 49 Young (R) 42 Corowa 26 Country Energy 25 Kempsey 39 Cowra 70 Kyogle
R – Reticulator; DS – Dual Supply; BS – Bulk Supplier; NO WS – No water supply; NO SGE – No sewerage
Updated September 2006
1
1 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 1.1 KEY INDICATORS
Key NSW performance indicators are shown below for the 107 LWUs existing at July 2005. The full suite of performance indicators is shown in the 2004/05 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Benchmarking Report which is provided on the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS) website (www.deus.nsw.gov.au/water).
To comply with best-practice management and to provide a balanced view of the long-term sustainability of NSW water utilities, this report provides a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) focus with performance reported on the basis of Social, Environmental and Economic indicators.
Best-practice management is essential for efficient and sustainable management of our valuable water resources and the environment. It enables a utility to achieve sustainable water supply and sewerage businesses and assists the utility to comply with National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative. It involves a TBL focus that provides a balanced view of the long-term sustainability of NSW water utilities. Triple bottom line accounting involves consideration of a utility’s business plan together with its social and environmental management practices.
The 2004/05 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Benchmarking Report presents a full suite of performance indicators and benchmarking data for all NSW water utilities. It provides comparative information to enable each utility to benchmark its performance against that of similar utilities.
Performance monitoring and benchmarking are required under National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative, are important for public accountability and have been strongly endorsed by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.
UTILITY CHARACTERISTICS
New Residential Dwellings Median new residential dwellings as a percent of the existing residential properties was:
Á 1.6% connected to water supply
Á 1.3% connected to sewerage
Properties Served per km of Main The median number of properties served per km of main was:
Á 32 for water supply
Á 42 for sewerage
POPULATION WITH RETICULATED SEWERAGE (Millions)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Provision of Reticulated Water Supply – The 2004/05 population provided with a reticulated water supply service was 1.8 million (97.7% coverage). For sewerage, the population served was 1.68 million (94.3% coverage).
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
2
UTILITY CHARACTERISTICS cont’d
Rainfall2004/05 was not quite as dry as previous years with 67% of water utilities receiving below average annual rainfall. Gosford received only 64% of its average rainfall while Tenterfield (133%) and Jerilderie (131%) received the highest percentage of their average annual rainfall.
Water Restrictions During 2004/05, 45% of LWUs needed to apply water restrictions. The median for water restrictions was 60% of the time. 51% of LWUs have implemented sound drought management [column 5 on page 53].
Business Plans 77% of LWUs have completed Strategic Business Plans and have demonstrated long term financial sustainability of their water supply and sewerage businesses thus complying with National Competition Policy [column 21 on page 54]. A number of these LWUs now need to update their business plans and financial plans. A further 11% have prepared draft Strategic Business Plans for their businesses.
SOCIAL – Charges/Bills
Tariffs98% of LWUs had residential water supply tariffs independent of land value, and 93% had residential sewerage tariffs independent of land value [columns 6 and 10 on page 54]. 59% of LWUs had both pay-for-use water supply pricing and full cost recovery for each of water supply and sewerage [column 20 on page 54]. These are required under National Competition Policy.
Water Usage Charge The Statewide median residential revenue from water usage charges was 49% [Figure 20 on page 40].
Á The median water usage charge was 92c/kL [column 5 on page 58]
Á 20% of utilities had a water usage charge of over 116c/kL, and
Á 80% of utilities had a usage charge of over 70c/kL.
Sewer Usage Charge
48% of water utilities had a sewer usage charge for non-residential customers [column 3a on page 61].
Annual Water Allowance 6 LWUs still have an annual water allowance [column 4 on page 58].
% LWUs WITH PAY-FOR-USE TARIFF
0
20
40
60
80
100
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Pay-for-use water supply tariff – 87 LWUs (92%) had a two-part tariff (ie. an access charge and a usage charge for all water usage) or an inclining block tariff in July 2005 (column 5 on page 54, column 5 on page 58). These tariffs comply with National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative.
The 6 water utilities that still have a water allowance are planning to abolish their allowances for the 2006/07 financial year.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
3
SOCIAL – Charges/Bills cont’d
Access Charge The median residential access charge per assessment was:
Á $101 for water supply [column 2 on page 58] and
Á $370 for sewerage [column 1 on page 61].
Developer Charges The median typical developer charge was:
Á $2600 per equivalent tenement (ET) for water supply [column 7 on page 58] and
Á $2300 per ET for sewerage [column 7 on page 61].
Trade Waste Charges 61% of LWUs had liquid trade waste fees and charges, compared with 30% of LWUs 2 years ago [column 4 on page 61].
All LWUs should levy appropriate non-residential sewerage access and sewer usage charges, together with trade waste fees and charges for all liquid trade waste dischargers to the sewerage system, including commercial properties.
Typical Residential Bill The median 2005/06 typical residential bill per assessment was:
Á $330 for water supply [Figure 2 on page 22, column 8 on page 58] and
Á $370 for sewerage [Figure 3 on page 23, column 8 on page 61].
The typical residential bill (TRB) is that paid by a residential customer using the LWU’s average annual residential water consumption. The average residential bill is generally lower than the TRB due to the $87.50 pensioner rebate and the absence of water usage charges for vacant lots [Notes 5 to 7 on page 19].
Average Residential Bill The median 2004/05 average residential bill per connected property was:
Á $330 for water supply [column 9 on page 58] and
Á $335 for sewerage [column 9 on page 61].
The NSW Government continues to actively encourage utilities to achieve best-practice through such measures as:
Á Best-Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines were published in May 2004.
Á Compliance with these Best-Practice Management Guidelines is a pre-requisite for payment of a dividend from a utility’s water supply or sewerage businesses.
Á Compliance is also required for financial assistance towards the capital cost of backlog infrastructure under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage (CTWS&S) Program.
Software and guidelines to assist LWUs in developing appropriate water supply and sewerage tariffs and liquid trade waste fees and charges are available from DEUS ( Scott Chapman on phone 8281 7335, fax 8281 7452, e-mail [email protected]).
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
4
SOCIAL – Health Served Urban Population As noted on page v, reticulated water supply and sewerage coverage of the urban population in non-metropolitan NSW was:
Á water supply 97.7% coverage
Á sewerage 94.3% coverage.
80
85
90
95
100
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
MICROBIOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE (E. coli) (% of samples complying with water quality guidelines)
For LWUs with a number of separate water treatment works or sewage treatment works, the 2004/05 compliance with drinking water quality guidelines and DEC licence conditions have been pro-rated based on the number of samples tested for each treatment works.
Drinking Water Quality – Microbiological water quality compliance for E.coli (health related) was 98% on the basis of the 1996 NHMRC/ARMCANZ Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) [Figure 5 on page 25, column 8 on page 54] and was similar to the other Australian utilities [graph 6 on page 43]. Chemical compliance (health related) was 96% [Figure 4 on page 24, column 7 on page 54] andphysical compliance was 97%.
Over the last 5 years microbiological compliance has increased from 97% to 98%, and physical and chemical compliance have ranged from 95% to 97%.
78% of LWUs reporting complied with the microbiological water quality guidelines for E. coli. 86% of LWUs reporting complied with the chemical water quality guidelines (health related) and 74% complied with the physical guidelines - aesthetic [Figure 4 on page 24, column 7 on page 54]. LWUs should ensure that sampling frequencies specified in Part 3 of the ADWG are adhered to.
SOCIAL – Levels of Service
SEWAGE ODOUR COMPLAINTS (per 1000 properties)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Sewage Odour Complaints -1.0 per 1000 properties which was lower than the other Australian utilities [graph 9 on page 44,
Figure 7 on page 27] and
Sewerage Service Complaints - 16 per 1000 properties.
Odour complaints have risen slightly to 1.0 over the last 10 years while service complaints have fallen from 20 to 16.
DEUS is working with LWUs experiencing high odour complaints to develop appropriate control measures.
WATER QUALITY COMPLAINTS(per 1000 properties)
0
2
4
6
8
10
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Water Quality Complaints - 5 per 1000 properties – similar to the other Australian utilities [graph 7 on page 43, Figure 6 on
page 26] and
Water Service Complaints - 13 per 1000 properties.
Water quality complaints have remained at about 5 over the last 10 years while service complaints have increased from 7 to 13. Water quality has improved significantly over this period due to the commissioning of new water treatment facilities.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
5
ENVIRONMENTAL – Water Usage and Reuse
Average Annual Residential Consumption
The median average annual residential potable water consumption was 200 kL/connected property, which was similar to Hunter Water and Melbourne and was lower than the other Australian utilities [page 9, graph 11 on page 44, Figure 8 on page 28].
Water Conservation 49% of LWUs have implemented a sound water conservation plan [column 4 on page 50].
Recycled Water Re-use of recycled water was carried out by 65% of LWUs, mostly for agriculture [Figure 12 on page 32].The total volume of water recycled was 29,000 ML. This was about 18%+ of the total volume of sewage collected, compared to 14% in 1998/99. 22% of LWUs recycled over 50% of their effluent.
+ Updated September 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL – Effluent Management
COMPLIANCE WITH BOD IN LICENCE(% of sample days complying)
80
85
90
95
100
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Sewage Effluent Quality (BOD) - 95% of the sampling days complied with the 90-percentile limits of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) licences for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) [graph 12 on page 45, Figure 9 on page 29, column 11 on page 54].
Compliance over the last 10 years has ranged from 93% to 97%. Over this period, licence limits for both BOD and SS have become more stringent for many LWUs.
59% of utilities complied with the 90-percentile limit of their BOD licence.
COMPLIANCE WITH SS IN LICENCE(% of sample days complying)
80
85
90
95
100
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Sewage Effluent Quality (SS) – 91% of the sampling days complied with the 90-percentile limits of the DEC licences for Suspended Solids (SS). SS and BOD compliance was slightly higher than country Victoria and slightly lower than the Australian Capital City utilities [graph 13 on page 45, Figure 10 on page 30, column 12 on page 54].
Compliance over the last 10 years has ranged from 90% to 94%. The major cause of non-compliance is the growth of algae in maturation ponds being measured as SS.
36% of utilities complied with the 90-percentile limits of their SS licence. The major cause of non-compliance was due to the growth of algae in maturation ponds, being measured as SS. Most treatment works in non-metropolitan NSW have maturation ponds due to the previous DEC preference for ponding over chlorination. Negotiations with the DEC to develop an appropriate licencing method when maturation ponds are used for disinfection have favoured an option to test for SS prior to the maturation ponds. For new installations and major augmentations, Ultra Violet (UV) disinfection is being used as an alternative to maturation ponds to overcome this problem.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
6
ENVIRONMENTAL – Effluent Management cont’d SEWER OVERFLOWS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
(per 100 km of Main)
0
4
8
12
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Sewer Overflows To The Environment
11 per 100 km of main, which was lower than most other Australian utilities [graph 15 on page 45, Figure 11 on page 31].
BIOSOLIDS REUSE (% of biosolids reused)
0
20
40
60
80
100
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Biosolids Reuse
In total, 98% of the biosolids produced was reused in 2004/05. This has increased from 43% in 1998/99.
As noted on the previous page, about 20% of the total sewage volume collected was recycled.
SEWER MAIN CHOKES & COLLAPSES(per 100 km of Main)
0
20
40
60
80
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Sewer Main Chokes And Collapses
49 per 100 km of main, which was lower than most other Australian utilities [graph 14 on page 45]. This has fallen from 75 to 49 over the last 12 years.
ECONOMIC – Financial
ECONOMIC REAL RATE OF RETURN(Water & Sewerage %)
0
1
2
3
4
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Economic Real Rate Of Return - 2.2% for water supply and sewerage, which was lower than the Australian capital city utilities but higher than country Victoria and significantly higher than the last reported values for country utilities in the other states [graph 16 on page 46]. 76% of LWUs reporting had a +ve real rate of return [column 15 on page 54].
The real rate of return has remained relatively constant over the last 10 years. The real rate of return for water supply was 2.3% and for sewerage was 1.8%.
Many LWUs had a negative economic real rate of return for water supply [Figure 13 on page 33, column 12 on page 58] or for sewerage [Figures 14 on page 34, column 11 on page 61]. The recent drought may have had a significant effect on the rate of return for many LWUs. Nevertheless, LWUs should investigate whether to increase their annual water supply, sewerage and trade waste bills and their developer charges and/or reduce their operation, maintenance and administration costs to ensure they achieve full cost-recovery.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
7
ECONOMIC – Financial cont’d
Turnover (revenue less grants for capital works) [columns 4, 9, 13 on page 56]Total turnover was $850M comprising:
Á $456M for water supply and
Á $396M for sewerage.
Debt to Equity [column 16 on page 54] - the median debt to equity was:
Á 2% for water supply and
Á 7% for sewerage.
Loan Payment - the median loan payment per connected property was:
Á $31 for water supply and
Á $30 for sewerage.
ECONOMIC – Efficiency
Operating Cost/property – the median operating cost (OMA) per connected property was:
Á Water Supply - $260/property[Figure 15 on page 35]
Á Sewerage - $270/property [Figure 16 on page 36]
SEWERAGE COMPONENTS OF OPERATING COST (OMA) ($/property)
Management, 100Maintenance,
65
Energy, 15Chemical, 5
Operation, 85
0
200
400
600
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGEOPERATING (OMA) COST ($/property)
Operating Cost (OMA)* -$530/property for water supply and sewerage [column 17 on page 54]. The operating cost per property has increased from $370 to $530 (Jan 2005$) over the last 14 years, largely due to more stringent standards for sewage treatment and to increasing management cost.
Utilities facing significant capital investment are encouraged to make greater use of borrowings to reduce their required Typical Residential Bill (TRB) and avoid unfairly burdening their existing customers.
The operating cost for water supply of $260/property was similar to Sydney and lower than the country utilities in other states. The operating cost for sewerage was $270/property, which was higher than most Australian utilities. Refer also to page 9 and graphs 17 and 18 on page 46.
LWUs with higher operating costs than the above median should examine their operations to determine whether they can improve their cost-effectiveness [page 17].
WATER SUPPLY COMPONENTS OF OPERATING COST (OMA) ($/property)
Maintenance, 75
Management, 100
Energy, 15 Chemical, 10
Operation, 60
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
8
ECONOMIC – Efficiency cont’d
WATER SUPPLY OPERATING (OMA) COST (c/kL)
0
20
40
60
80
100
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Water Supply Operating Cost - 81c/kL (Jan 2005$). This has risen from 40c/kL in the last 10 years largely due to higher management costs and reduced water consumption per property [Figure 17 on page 37, column 6 on page 58].
Sewerage Operating Cost - 115c/kL [column 2 on page 61].This has risen from 50c/kL over the last 10 years due to more stringent standards for sewage treatment and to increasing management costs.
MANAGEMENT COST WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE ($/property)
0
50
100
150
200
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Management Cost - $200/property for water supply and sewerage [column 18 on page 54]. The management cost per property has increased from $110 to $200 (Jan 2005$) over the last 14 years.
Water Supply - the management cost/property for water supply was $100 [Figure 18 on page 38]
Sewerage – the management cost for sewerage was $100 [Figure 19 on page 39].
Treatment Cost - the median treatment cost per property was:
Á $26 for water treatment and
Á $84 for sewage treatment (including chemical and energy costs).
Pumping Cost - the median pumping cost per connected property (including energy) was:
Á $23 for water supply and
Á $45 for sewerage.
Water Main and Sewer Main Cost - the median water main and sewer main cost per connected property was:
Á $49 for water mains and
Á $31 for sewer mains.
EMPLOYEES WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE (per 1000 properties)
0
1
2
3
4
92 94
96/97
98/99
00/01
02/03
04/05
Number of Employees - 2.8 per 1000 properties for water supply and sewerage, which was lower than country Victoria and the last reported values for Sydney and Hunter. This indicator has fallen from a maximum of 3.3 over the last 14 years.
Water Supply– the employees per 1000 properties has fallen by over 20% from a maximum of 1.7 to 1.3 and
Sewerage - the employees per 1000 properties has fallen by almost 20% from a maximum of 1.8 to 1.5.
Only utilities with water treatment works involving at least filtration and disinfection for over 50% of their supply have been considered.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
9
1.2 INTERSTATE COMPARISONS To provide an overall assessment of the performance of NSW LWUs, a number of performance indicators have been compared below with those of interstate utilities. For detailed graphs of performance over the last 14 years, refer to Appendix A.
SOCIALWater quality complaints were similar to the other
Australian utilities while sewage odour complaints were lower than most other Australian utilities [graph 7 on page 43 and graph 9 on page 44].
Compliance with microbiological water quality guidelines was similar to the other Australian utilities
[graph 6 on page 43].
ENVIRONMENTAL Annual residential water consumption per property
was similar to Hunter Water and Melbourne, and was lower than the other Australian utilities [graph 11 on page 44].
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSUMPTION2004/05 (kL per property)
0
100
200
300
MW ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC
BOD and SS compliance was similar to country
Victoria and slightly lower than the capital city utilities [graphs 12 and 13 on page 45].
Water main breaks, sewer main chokes and sewer overflows to the environment were lower than most other Australian utilities [graph 8 on page 43 and graphs 14 and 15 on page 45].
ECONOMIC Economic real rate of return [graph 16 on page 46] was lower
than most capital city utilities, but was higher than country Victoria and significantly higher than the last reported values for country utilities in other states.
ECONOMIC REAL RATE OF RETURN (2004/05 Water & Sewerage %)
0
2
4
6
8
MW ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC
Annual operating cost (OMA) for water supply was $260 per
connected property [graph 17 on page 46], which was slightly higher than Sydney and lower than country utilities in the other states. Properties served per km of water or sewer main was similar to country Victoria and significantly lower than capital city utilities [graphs 1 and 2 on page 41].
WATER SUPPLY OPERATING COST (OMA)(2004/05 per connected property)
0
100
200
300
400
MW ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC
The operating cost (OMA) for sewerage was $270 per
connected property [graph 18 on page 46], which was similar to Victoria and higher than most of the capital city utilities. However, all sewage treatment works in non-metropolitan NSW provided at least secondary treatment, while 5 of the 7 capital city utilities provided significantly less (Sydney provided such treatment for only 24% of its sewage[graph 10 on page 44].
10
2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Performance monitoring and benchmarking are required under National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative, are important for public accountability and have been strongly endorsed by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.
This Performance Monitoring report presents the key NSW performance indicators. The 2004/05 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Benchmarking Report provides the full suite of performance indicators and benchmarking data for LWUs to enable each LWU to benchmark its performance against that of similar LWUs. The benchmarking report is available on the DEUS website (www.deus.nsw.gov.au/water).
Triple Bottom Line Focus To provide a balanced view of the long-term sustainability of NSW Local Water Utilities (LWUs), a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) accounting focus has been adopted, with performance reported on the basis of social, environmental and economic performance indicators.
Statewide Performance Statewide performance indicators are calculated on a ‘percentage of connected properties basis’. This best reveals Statewide performance by giving due weight to larger LWUs and reducing the effect of smaller LWUs on the data.
To facilitate comparisons, the performance indicators in this report have been prepared for each LWU’s aggregated water supply businesses and aggregated sewerage businesses, rather than for individual water supply and sewerage systems.
Factors Impacting on Performance When comparing reported performance, utilities should take account of the wide range of factors which can impact on their performance and on their typical residential bill which is the principal indicator of the overall cost of a water supply or sewerage system [refer to page 3, page 18 and Note
5 on page 19]. Such factors can produce a fundamental difference in performance.
For example, in the case of water supply, a utility which provides the full water supply system will perform differently to one which only provides components of the system (eg. Reticulation or Bulk supply). Each utility can improve its performance by taking account of such factors and comparing its performance with utilities having similar characteristics [refer to page 18].
11
3 BEST-PRACTICE MANAGEMENT 3.1 BEST-PRACTICE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES The NSW Government has published Best-Practice Management Guidelines to encourage continuing improvement in performance of water and sewerage businesses in NSW. The guidelines will assist utilities to identify the key elements in the delivery of water supply and sewerage services to the community. The guidelines are available on the DEUS website (www.deus.nsw.gov.au/water)
In summary, the guidelines require an LWU to prepare strategic business plans setting out how it plans to manage these businesses over the next 20 years and to establish an appropriate level of annual income from water supply, sewerage and trade waste charges. In addition to levying commercial water supply and sewerage developer charges, the LWU needs to consider the levels of service, meeting projected infrastructure recurrent costs and capital cost, externalities, dividend and tax-equivalent payments in order to achieve full cost-recovery and to provide appropriate signals to customers about the cost consequences of their water usage. 88% of LWUs have prepared at least draft strategic business plans.
Utilities that comply with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines will:
Á have achieved healthy and sustainable water supply and sewerage businesses.
Á comply with National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative.
Á be eligible to pay an annual dividend from the surplus of their water supply and sewerage businesses to the council’s general revenue.
Á be eligible for financial assistance towards the capital cost of backlog infrastructure under the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage program.
The Best-Practice Management Guidelines identify six criteria that each LWU must comply with. These are:
Á strategic business planning,
Á pricing and developer charges (including liquid trade waste approvals),
Á water conservation and demand management,
Á drought management,
Á performance reporting,
Á integrated water cycle management.
Strategic Business Plan The community and governments are demanding increased accountability, increased levels of services and increased efficiency from water utilities. In addition, regulatory authorities are imposing more stringent environmental and health regulations. A strategic business plan addresses these issues and provides a framework within which the utility can negotiate appropriate levels of service with the community and develop a cost-effective capital works program and operation and maintenance plans. The business plan must include a long-term financial plan. 77% of utilities have completed such strategic business plans while a further 11% have prepared draft plans [column 21 on page 54].
BEST-PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
12
DDRROOUUGGHHTT MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT
(1) Pricing and Developer Charges (including Trade Waste Approvals) Best practice pricing is fundamental to the effective management of water supply and sewerage businesses, resulting in fair pricing of services, removal of significant cross-subsidies and protection of our valuable water resources and the environment.
- 59% of LWUs now have both pay-for-use water supply pricing and full cost recovery for water supply and sewerage [columns 5, 15 and 20 on page 54].
- 64% of LWUs have an appropriate water supply Development Servicing Plan (DSP) with commercial developer charges and 55% of LWUs have such a sewerage DSP [columns 2c and 2d on page 50].
- 33% of LWUs have complying liquid trade waste fees and charges [column 2c on page 50].
- 42% of LWUs have completed an appropriate liquid trade waste policy and have issued a liquid trade waste approval to all their trade waste dischargers [column 2e on page 50].
DEUS has also published Water Supply, Sewerage and Trade Waste Pricing Guidelines in December 2002 and Liquid Trade Waste Management Guidelines in March 2005. In addition to providing guidance for best-practice pricing by LWUs, these documents emphasise the need for appropriate pricing to comply with the above COAG commitments.
(2) Water conservation and demand management are essential for ensuring efficient use of our valuable water resources and to improve environmental outcomes. Cost-effective water conservation delivers significant environmental and social benefits and reduces capital and operating costs.
As noted on page 5, 49% of LWUs have implemented a sound water conservation plan [column 4 on page 50].
Measures that should be examined in each LWU’s water conservation plan include:
- active intervention - eg. retrofit programs, rebates for water efficient appliances or rainwater tanks and building code programs (including BASIX),
- water pricing reform, community education, water loss and leakage reduction programs.
(3) Drought Management is a fundamental responsibility of the LWU. This needs to be documented with a drought management plan. As noted on page 2, 51% of LWUs have implemented sound drought management [column 5 on page 50].
BEST-PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
13
(4) Performance Reporting is required under National Competition Policy and the National Water Initiative and is essential for monitoring and improving performance and for public accountability. Reporting forms should be lodged with DEUS by 15 September each year [column 3 on page 50].
(5) Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) is a framework to help identify water management issues, to address these issues, to determine the appropriate management strategies to meet social, environmental and economic objectives. LWUs should substantially commence an IWCM strategy by June 2005 and complete and implement the strategy by June 2006. Over 28% of LWUs reported that they have at least commenced their IWCM strategy [columns (6) and (4) on page 50].
3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES Water utilities are required to report their outcomes against the required key criteria (6 for water supply and 4 for sewerage) in Notes 2 & 3 of the Special Purpose Financial Reports of their 2004/05 Annual Financial Statements.
The reported LWU compliance is shown in Appendix C. For water supply, compliance at June 2005 was 58% for business and financial planning, 58% for pricing, 92% for performance reporting, 49% for water conservation and 51% for drought management. 27% of LWUs have complied with all the required criteria. It can be seen [page 50 of Appendix C] that the highest reported compliances are for pricing with full cost-recovery (82% - column 2) and performance reporting (92% - column 3), while the lowest reported compliances are for non-residential charges (58% - column 2b), DSP with commercial developer charges (64% - column 2c), water conservation (49% - column 4) and drought management (51% - column 5).
For sewerage, compliance was 57% for business and financial planning, 33% for pricing and 87% for performance reporting. 14% of LWUs have complied with all the required criteria. The highest reported compliances are for residential charges (80% - column 2a on page 49) and performance reporting (87% - column 3), while the lowest reported compliances are for non-residential charges (40% - column 2b), trade waste fees and charges (33% - column 2c), developer charges (55% - column 2d) and liquid trade waste approvals and policy (42% - column 2e).
Compliance for integrated water cycle management (IWCM) is not required until June 2006. However, 28% of LWUs have at least commenced preparation of an IWCM strategy.
All utilities should move to comply with the guidelines by addressing these criteria. Particular attention is required for residential water supply revenue from usage charges, non-residential water supply and sewerage charges, trade waste fees and charges, developer charges and liquid trade waste approvals and policy.
3.3 ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDSAppendix C also indicates that only 7 utilities have reported that they propose to pay a dividend from the surplus of their water supply or sewerage businesses.
The compliance guidelines were only recently released (in May 2004) and therefore compliance is expected to increase markedly over the next two years as utilities proceed to implement best-practice management. This will
result in many more utilities being eligible for payment of a dividend and more importantly, an increase in the number of efficient and sustainable water supply and sewerage businesses in non-metropolitan NSW.
14
4 UTILITY PERFORMANCE 4.1 TBL PERFORMANCE REPORTS DEUS provides each utility and IPART with an annual Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Performance Report for the utility’s water supply and sewerage businesses (a sample report is shown on pages 48 and 49).
The 2004/05 LWU TBL Performance Reports indicate the status of each LWU’s strategic business plan and financial plan. LWUs that have completed these plans have demonstrated long-term financial sustainability of their water supply and sewerage businesses and comply with National Competition Policy.
The status of compliance of each LWU with each of the Best-Practice Management Guidelines criteria is also shown in the 2004/05 LWU TBL Performance Report.
To assist each LWU to gain a quick appreciation of its performance relative to similar sized LWUs, the LWU TBL Performance Report provides a ranking of each LWU’s performance for each performance indicator (second shaded column).
These rankings are based on the top 20% of LWUs for each indicator being ranked 1 and the bottom 20% being ranked 5 (LWUs in the range 40% to 60% are ranked 3). In addition, rankings are provided for each LWU’s performance relative to all LWUs (third shaded column).
LWUs will appreciate that each of the performance indicators is a “partial” indicator only and therefore cannot be interpreted in isolation. In addition, the rankings are indicative only and do not take account of the wide range of factors which can impact on an LWU’s performance, as discussed on pages 17 and 18. The aim of ranking each LWU’s performance is to assist the LWU in identifying any areas of under-performance in comparison with similar sized LWUs.
Each LWU can improve its performance in areas of apparent under-performance by benchmarking key work processes in these areas with the work processes of 1 or 2 high performing LWUs having similar characteristics (pages 17 and 18) and implementing best practices thus identified.
Orange City Council TBL Sewerage Performance 2004/05
Compliance with Best-Practice Management Guidelines Criteria
(1) Complete Current Strategic Business Plan & Financial Plan YES
(2) Pricing (full cost-recovery, without significant cross subsidies) YES (2e) Liquid trade waste approvals & policy (By June 2005)(2a) Complying Residential Charges YES (3) Complete performance Reporting Form by 31 October each year(2b) Complying non-Residential Charges YES (6) Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy (by June 2006)(2c) Complying Trade Waste Fees and Charges YES Compliance with All Required Criteria
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Performance IndicatorsLWU Ranking 2 Statewide
1 Population Served: 35,800 (1.01 connected properties per assessment) Result (All LWUs)
2 Number of Assessments : 14,300 14,400
3 Residential Assessments (% of total) 91 3 92
4 New Residential Dwellings Connected to Sewerage (%) 2.4 1 1 1.3
5 Properties Served per km of Main 38 2 42
6 Volume of Sewage Collected (ML) 4,480 3 4,480
7 Renewals Expenditure (% of current replacement cost of system assets) 0.0 3 3 0.0
8 Employees (per 1000 properties) 1.1 1 1 1.5
9 Employees Undergoing 2 or more Days of Training (%)
10 Description of Residential 5 Tariff Structure: Access Charge/property; Independent of Land Value
11 Residential Access Charge 2004/05 5 ($/assessment) 273 2 37512 Typical Residential Bill 2004/05 ($/assessment) 273 1 1 37013 Typical Developer Charge 2004/05 ($/equivalent tenement) 3,170 2 2,10014 Average Residential Bill 2003/04 ($/connected property) 260 2 335
16 Urban Properties without Reticulated Sewerage Service (%) 0.1 1 1 0.6
17 Category 1 Public Health Incidents - Minor (per 1000 properties) 0
18 Category 2 Public Health Incidents - Limited Effects (per 1000 properties) 0.0
19 Category 3 Public Health Incidents - Major (per 1000 properties) 0.00
20 Capital Expenditure on Improving Public Health ($/property) 0 3 3 1
21 Odour Complaints (per 1000 properties) 0.0 1 1 1.0
22 Service Complaints (per 1000 properties) 32 4 14
23 Customer Interruption Frequency (per 1000 properties) 1
23a Average Duration of Interruption (hr) 2 3 2
24 Average Customer Outage Time (min) 2
25 Total Days Lost (%) 1.0
26 Volume of Sewage Treated per property (kL/a) 311 5 225
27 Reclaimed Water (% of effluent reclaimed) 78 1 2 11
28 Biosolids Reuse (%) 100 1 1 98
30 Energy Consumption (kWh/ML) 600
32 Renewable Energy Consumption (kWh/property) 0
33 90 Percentile Licence Limits for Effluent Discharge:BOD 20 mg/L; SS 25 mg/L; Total N 15 mg/L; Total P 1 mg/L
34 Compliance with BOD in Licence (%) 100 1 1 100
35 Compliance with SS in Licence (%) 100 1 1 98
36 Sewer Main Chokes and Collapses (per 100 km of main) 112 4 4 49
37 Sewer Overflows to the Environment (per 100 km of main) 13 3 3 11
39 Category 1 Environmental Incidents - Minor (per 1000 properties) 0
40 Category 2 Environmental Incidents - Limited Effects (per 1000 properties) 0.0
41 Category 3 Environmental Incidents - Major (per 1000 properties) 0.00
42 Capital Investment on Improving Environmental Performance ($/property) 0 3 3 40
43 Revenue from Non-residential plus Trade Waste Charges (% of total) 70
44 Revenue from Trade Waste Charges (% of total) 3.3 1 1.3
46 Economic Real Rate of Return (%) 0.2 4 3 1.7
46a Return on Assets (%) 1.3 3 3 2.0
47 Debt to Equity (%) 0.0 4 6.8
48 Interest Cover (%) >5000 1 1 1210
48a Loan Payment ($/property) 0 5 5 39
49 Operating Cost (OMA) per 100 km of Main ($'000/100km) 980 2 3 1100
50 Operating Cost (OMA) per property ($/property) 259 2 2 270
51 Operating Cost (OMA) per kL (c/kL) 83 2 2 117
52 Management Cost ($/property) 89 2 3 97
53 Treatment Cost ($/property) 81 3 3 84
54 Pumping Cost ($/property) 14 1 1 45
55 Energy Cost ($/property) 20 4 4 16
56 Sewer Main Operation & Maintenance Cost ($/property) 42 4 4 31
Ranking for LWUs with (>10,000) connected properties is based on dividing the results for LWUs in this group into 5 equal divisions of 20% :ie. a ranking of 1 indicates the LWU is in the top 20% of LWUs; a ranking of 5 indicates the LWU is in the bottom 20% of LWUs. (Relevant for comparison with LWUs of a similar size).
2 Ranking (1 to 5) for all LWUs is on a percentage of LWUs basis . (Relevant for comparing performance with all other LWUs).34567
8 8
Trade waste & non-residential rates & charges provided 5% of the annual rates & charges revenue, including usage.Compliance with Total N in Licence was 53%. Compliance with Total P in Licence was 100%.The operating cost (OMA)/property was $259. The components of operating cost/property were: management ($89), operation ($100), maintenance ($36), energy ($20) and chemical ($15).
Cha
rges
/Bill
s
Median 3
Effic
ienc
yH
ealth
Leve
ls o
f Ser
vice
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
e M
anag
emen
tFi
nanc
ial
The Statewide Median is on a percentage of connected properties basis (see Table 2 of the 04/05 NSW Performance Benchmarking Report) as this is the most appropriate for statewide comparisons.Annual review of the key projections and actions in LWU's Business Plan are required, together with annual updating of LWU's Financial Plan. The business plan should be updated after 3 years.Non-residential: Access Charge based on size of service connection, sewer usage charge - 128c/kL.
Properties)
YES
Ranking 1
(>10,000
Number of Connected Properties:
The area sewered is 2,400 ha, serving Orange and Spring Hill. Council has 2 sewage treatment works providing advance secondary treatment. The system comprises 61,000 EP treatment capacity (comprising one trickling filter/CEAC and activated sludge, and 1 Continuous extended aeration (activated sludge)), 11 pumping stations, 31 km of rising mains, 349 km of reticulation, and 2 river discharges. The total number of sampling days at the treatment works was 34. There were no major malfunctions of the treatment processes. Peak wet weather flow was 800 L/s and average dry weather flow was 120 L/s. The current replacement cost of system assets was $111M ($7,800/assessment), cash and investments were $18.7M, debt was nil and turnover was $8.9M (excluding capital works grants).
YES
YES
YES
Notes:1
ECO
NO
MIC
UTI
LITY
CH
AR
AC
TER
ISTI
CS
SOC
IAL
ENVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L
(2d) DSP with commercial developer charges
Orange City Council TBL Sewerage Performance (page 2) 2004/05(Results shown for 11 years together with 2004/05 Statewide Median and Top 20%)
LEGENDNote: Costs are in Jan 2005$. 2004/05 State Median
2004/05 Top 20%
8. Employees
0.0
0.8
1.6
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Emplo
yees
per 1
000 P
rope
rties
4. New Residential Dwellings Connected to Sewerage
0
1
2
3
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
% of
Exis
ting R
eside
ntial
Prop
erite
s
12. Typical Residential Bill
0
100
200
300
400
500
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04 05/06
Typic
al Re
siden
tial B
ill ($/a
sses
smen
t)13. Typical Developer Charges
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04 05/06
Typic
al De
velop
er C
harg
es ($
/Lot)
46. Economic Real Rate of Return
-2-101234567
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Econ
omic
Real
Rate
of Re
turn (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Comp
lianc
e with
BOD
in Li
cenc
e (%
)
34. Compliance with BOD in Licence 35. Compliance with SS in Licence
0
20
40
60
80
100
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Comp
lianc
e with
SS
in Lic
ence
(%)
0
50
100
150
200
250
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Sewe
r Cho
kes p
er 10
0km
of Ma
in
36. Sewer Main Chokes and Collapses
05
101520253035404550
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Sewe
r Ove
rflows
per 1
00km
of M
ain
37. Sewer Overflows to the Environment
21. Odour Complaints
0.0
1.0
2.0
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Odou
r Com
plaint
s per
1000
prop
ertie
s
50. Operating Cost OMA
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Oper
ating
Cos
t ($/pr
oper
ty)
52. Management Cost
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Mana
geme
nt Co
st ($
/prop
erty)
53. Treatment Cost
020406080
100120140160
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Trea
tmen
t Ope
ratin
g Cos
t ($/pr
oper
ty)
54. Pumping Cost
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Pump
ing O
pera
ting C
ost ($
/prop
erty)
0
20
40
60
80
25. Total Days Lost
0
1
2
3
94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Total
Day
s Los
t (%)
UTILITY PERFORMANCE
15
4.2 BEST PERFORMING UTILITIES As noted on page 18, comparison of utility performance must be treated with caution due to the wide range of factors influencing the performance of these businesses. Substantial differences can arise due to whether or not the utility provides bulk storage and/or a filtered water supply and whether or not the utility has long transfer systems from its water sources and associated high pumping costs. Other differences can arise from the different customer profiles (eg. whether there is a significant industrial component or a high density residential component) and from other factors including geography and whether or not the utility operates nutrient removal facilities at its sewage treatment works. The size of utility is also a significant factor due to economies of scale.
A utility may appear to perform well for a particular indicator. However, it is essential to review performance for a suite of relevant indicators in order to gain an appreciation of the utility’s overall performance.
The best-performing utilities have been identified from the utilities that broadly complied with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines (including reported “Yes” to at least columns (1) , (2), (2a) and (3) of Appendix C (page 49) and which achieved the best performance for the suite of indicators shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
WATER SUPPLY As shown in Table 4.1 below, key indicators used to compare performance and identify the best-performing water supply utilities are:
Best-Practice, Efficiency
- Broad compliance with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines, including a current strategic business plan and financial plan (1) [column 1 on page 50], pay-for-use water pricing and full cost-recovery (2) [columns 2 and
2a on page 50], commercial developer charges (3) [column 2c on page 50] and water conservation plan (4) [column 4 on page 50]. A “Yes” response to these indicators was a pre-requisite.
- % Residential revenue from usage charges (5) [Figure 20 on page 40 and column 13 on page 58]
- Operation, maintenance and administration (OMA) cost per property (6) [Figure 15 on page 35]
- Management cost per property (7) [Figure 18 on page 38]
- Economic Real Rate of Return (8)[Figure 13 on page 33, column 12 on page 58]
Environmental - Average Annual Residential Consumption per property (9)
[Figure 8 on page 28, column 3 on page 54]
Social – Bills
- Typical residential bill per assessment (10) [Figure 2 on page 22, column 8 on page 58]
Social - Levels of Service
- Water Quality Complaints per 1000 properties (11) [Figure 6 on page 26]
- Water Service Complaints per 1000 properties (12)
- Water Main Breaks per 100km (13)
- Customer Interruption Frequency (%) (14)
Social - Health
- Microbiological Water Quality Compliance (E. coli) (15) [Figure 5 on page 25, column 8 on page 50]
Table 4.1 Best-Performing Water Supply Utilities
Water Utility Environmental Bills HealthConnected Properties
Turnover
($M)
Current SBP and
FP?
Pay-for-use Pricing with
Full Cost Recovery?
Commercial Developer Charges?
Water Conservation
Plan?
Residential Revenue from
Usage Charges
TRB
$/assessmentYes is
pre-requisiteYes is
pre-requisiteYes is
pre-requisiteYes is
pre-requisite (%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Albury City 22,000 9.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 72 207 94 0.1 284 228 0 12 10 0.0 100Coffs Harbour 22,600 18.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 64 215 103 6.5 186 452 5 21 10 3.3 100Dubbo 15,300 9.3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 56 367 140 2.2 462 498 1 1 6 2.6 100Port Macquarie-Hastings (Unfilte 27,100 19.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 49 299 94 2.3 186 345 6 16 4 1.5 100Nambucca (Groundwater) 6,000 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 66 184 76 3.6 205 270 1 4 6 1.3 100Riverina (Groundwater) (NO SGE 26,600 14.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 74 237 65 2.3 343 320 1 3 19 0.1 100Shoalhaven 43,800 18.9 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 207 111 3.1 167 212 3 5 11 0.4 100Tamworth Regional 19,700 11.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 69 313 113 2.0 317 404 1 40 19 97Wyong 57,100 29.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 66 227 98 2.2 178 257 6 1 5 3.4 100Yass Valley 2,900 1.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 58 315 108 1.5 195 421 1 16 11 0.4 96
Microbiological Water Quality Compliance
(%)
Average Annual Residential Water
Consumption(Potable)
(kL/connected property)
Management Cost
$ per property
OMA Cost
$ per Property
Best-Practice Management, EfficiencyEconomic Real Rate of Return
(%)
Water Main
Breaks
per 100km of main
CharacteristicsWater Quality Complaints
per 1000 properties
Customer Interruption Frequency
%
Level of ServiceWater
Service Complaints
per 1000 properties
UTILITY PERFORMANCE
16
Best-Performing Water Supply Utilities
The top 10 performing water supply utilities in 2004/05 are shown in Table 4.1 on the preceding page and were Albury City, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Nambucca, Riverina, Shoalhaven, Tamworth Regional, Wyong and Yass Valley.
These best-performing water supply utilities have all achieved broad compliance with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines. In addition, they mostly have a relatively high percentage of residential revenue from usage charges and low residential bills, OMA and management costs per property, a low level of water quality and service complaints and almost 100% microbiological compliance.
SEWERAGEThe key indicators used to compare performance and identify the best-performing sewerage utilities are:
Best-Practice, Efficiency Broad compliance with Best-Practice Management Guidelines, including a current strategic business plan and financial plan (1) [column 1 on page 50], sewerage pricing with full cost-recovery without significant cross subsidies (2) [columns 2 and 2a on page 50], at least a draft Trade Waste Policy (3) and Trade Waste charges (4) [column 4 on page 61], a non-residential sewer usage charge (5) [column 3a on page 61] and commercial developer charges (6) [column 2d on page 50]. As noted on the preceding page, a “Yes” response to these indicators was a pre-requisite.
- Operation, maintenance & administration (OMA) cost (7) [Figure 16 on page 36]
- Management cost per property (8) [Figure 19 on page 39]
- Economic Real Rate of Return (9) [Figure 14 on page 34, column 11 on page 61]
Environmental
- Compliance with BOD licence limits (10)[column 11 on page 50]
- Sewer Main Chokes & Collapses per 100km of main (11)
- Sewer Overflows to Environment per 100km of main (12) [Figure 11 on page 31]
Social – Bills
- Typical residential bill per assessment (13)[Figure 3 on page 23, column 8 on page 61]
Social - Levels of Service
- Sewage Odour Complaints per 1000 properties (14) [Figure 7 on page 27]
- Sewerage Service or Choke Complaints per 1000 properties (15)
Best-Performing Sewerage Utilities
The top 10 performing sewerage utilities in 2004/05 were Dubbo, Gosford, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Lismore, MidCoast, Orange, Parkes, Shoalhaven, Wingecarribee and Wyong. Table 4.2 shows the results for these utilities.
As noted on the preceding page, these best-performing sewerage utilities have all achieved broad compliance with the Best-Practice Management Guidelines. In addition, they mostly have relatively low residential bills, OMA and management costs per property. They also mostly have high compliance with BOD and relatively low sewer chokes, overflows, sewage odour complaints and sewerage service complaints.
Table 4.2 Best-Performing Sewerage Utilities Water Utility Environmental
Connected Properties
Turnover
($M)
Current SBP and
FP?
Pricing with Full Cost
Recovery?
Trade Waste
Policy?
Trade Waste
Charges?
Non-Residential
Sewer Usage Charge?
Commercial Developer Charges?
OMA Cost per Property
Management Cost per property
TRB
$/assessmentYes is a
Pre-requisiteYes is a
Pre-requisiteYes is a
Pre-requisiteYes is a
Pre-requisite
Yes is a Pre-requisite
Yes is a Pre-requisite
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
Dubbo 13,700 208 8.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 371 122 2.8 92 64 15 421 0.1 16Gosford 64,500 232 27.4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 267 136 0.2 100 49 48 364 1.0 15Port Macquarie-Hastings 24,300 308 15.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 329 86 1.8 77 19 1 409 4Lismore 11,900 299 7.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 279 56 3.5 100 67 4 270 0.3 19MidCoast (Combined ) 31,100 256 26.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 326 49 5.0 98 33 1 565 2.3 10Orange 14,400 311 8.9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 259 89 0.2 100 112 13 273 32Parkes 4,600 193 1.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 154 33 2.4 66 54 56 230 1.3 11Shoalhaven 36,600 176 27.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 333 136 4.7 100 30 26 515 1.4 16Wingecarribee 13,300 205 9.3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 284 128 1.7 99 79 1 504 0.6 35Wyong 56,100 203 24.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 233 68 0.2 100 56 1 368 1.1 12
Sewer Main Chokes & Collapses
per 100 km of main
Service or Choke
Complaints per 1000 properties
Sewage Odour
Complaints per 1000 properties
Sewer Main Overflows
per 100 km of main
Compliancewith BOD Licence
Limits(%)
Level of Service, BillsVolume of Sewage
Treated per property
(kL/connected property)
Characteristics Best-Practice Management, EfficiencyEconomic Real Rate of Return
(%)
GREEN GLOBE EXCELLENCE AWARDSCongratulations to all of the above top 10 performers. Each of these utilities has won a Green Globe Award for excellence in watersupply and sewerage. Awards will be presented to each utility by the Minister for Water Utilities.
17
5 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE A utility’s overall aim for its water supply and sewerage businesses should be to provide the levels of service negotiated with its community at the lowest sustainable cost. After setting cost-reflective developer charges, non-residential charges and liquid trade waste fees and charges, each utility should minimise its typical residential bill in current dollars on a sustainable basis.
In practice this means reviewing whether your performance indicators under “Health”, “Levels of Service” and “Environmental” are satisfactory. If they are not, you need to develop options to raise your levels of service and consult the community to establish the option which provides the best value for money.
As noted on page 10, the typical residential bill is the principal indicator of the overall cost of a water supply or sewerage system and is the annual bill paid by a residential customer using the utility’s average annual residential water consumption. A critical element in minimising the typical residential bill and providing value for money for the community is to ensure each utility’s operating cost (OMA) is efficient.
To assess performance, you should:
(1) Review your performance using your 2004/05TBL Performance Report for each of water supply and sewerage (sample review is on page 47, sample reports are on pages 48 and 49).
(2) Identify any trends in your performance indicators over the last 10 years using the second page of the 2004/05 TBL Performance Report, and compare the performance indicators with the Statewide median values and the top 20%.
(3) Compare selected performance indicators with those of similar sized utilities using the Figures showing performance trends for 4 utility size ranges over the last 5 years [eg. Figure 8 on page 28].
(4) Review Operating Cost - the operating cost (OMA – operation, maintenance and administration) per property is a prime indicator of the performance of an LWU and should be reviewed carefully by each LWU to ensure it has an efficient operating cost [Figure 15 on page 35].
The components of operating cost are:
(4a) Management cost – this includes administration, engineering and supervision and is typically almost 40% of the total operating cost [Figure 18 on page 38].
(4b) Treatment cost (water) – this is dependent on the type and quality of the water source and the extent of treatment provided. In addition, there are great economies of scale for the operation of water treatment works (ie. facilities involving at least filtration and disinfection).
Treatment cost (sewage) – this is dependent on the type of treatment and the discharge requirements. Where the discharge licence conditions are stringent, involving for example a low level of phosphorus, treatment costs will be high. There are significant economies of scale for operation of treatment works.
(4c) Pumping cost (water) – this is dependent on topography and, for water supply, the location of the water source. For example, Country Energy has a high pumping cost due to the distance required to pump from the water source, while Fish River is almost a fully gravitational supply, with negligible pumping costs. For water supply, there are significant economies of scale in pumping cost per property.
(4d) Energy cost – this is mainly a consequence of pumping requirements and is a component of pumping cost for water supply. Energy cost may be reduced by maximising pumping in off-peak periods or by obtaining a competitive energy rate from the energy supplier (eg. maximising off-peak pumping has provided annual savings in energy costs of over $200,000 for a number of large water supplies).
For sewerage, energy cost is a component of pumping and treatment costs. Significant cost savings may be available by optimising energy use in the treatment process (eg. such optimising of energy use has provided annual savings of over $100,000 for a number of large sewage treatment works).
(4e) Water and Sewerage mains cost – this is dependent on the age and condition of the mains, the ground conditions and the number of connected properties per km of mains.
(5) Undertake process benchmarking for selected indicators for areas of apparent under-performance, eg. where the LWU has a ranking of 3 to 5 relative to LWUs with similar characteristics.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE
18
5.1 FACTORS IMPACTING PERFORMANCE Many factors impact on a utility’s performance and make comparison of water businesses a complex analysis. These factors include the extent of the services provided by each utility, geography, climate etc. An understanding of these factors is vital for valid interpretation of performance data.
The most meaningful indicators are the trends over time for each utility. However, even with these, care needs to be exercised due to changes in the factors over time. For comparison between utilities, each utility should benchmark its performance with utilities having similar characteristics. An example of some of the factors affecting performance of a water supply system are outlined below.
UTILITY CHARACTERISTICS (1) Climate – the variability of rainfall is a key
driver of water supply costs in relation to water demand and drought security. This will affect both capital and operational costs
(2) Geography – The geology, geography and topography can have a significant affect on water transportation costs.
(3) Asset Life Cycle –Recently constructed systems have much lower maintenance and renewals costs compared to older systems.
(4) Development density– Distribution networks are a major investment component of a water system. The density of urban development has a large effect on the infrastructure cost (eg. the number of properties served per km of main varies in non-metropolitan NSW from 5 to over 90).
(5) Bulk storage and/or long transfer systems –can incur significant capital and operating costs. Such costs would not apply for utilities relying on groundwater or those receiving a regulated supply from a State Water dam [Note 15 on page 20].
(6) Size of LWU – there are significant economies of scale for large utilities, particularly the capital cost of infrastructure and operation of water treatment works.
SOCIAL – Levels of Service (7) Service standards – Increasingly stringent
standards for water quality and environmental health may result in additional capital and operational costs to the utility. Similarly, requirements for minimum pressures or rates of flow can also affect costs.
(8) Filtered supply – will incur a high treatment cost per property for small water supply systems (utilities without ‘unfiltered’ or ‘groundwater’ after their name in Appendices C to E have water treatment involving at least filtration and disinfection for over 50% of their water supply) [Note 16 on page 20].
ENVIRONMENTAL (9) High residential consumption per property -
such utilities should examine opportunities for reducing consumption through water demand management and implementation of best-practice water pricing.
ECONOMIC(10) High loan payment per property - indicates a
relatively high capital cost per property, recent construction of significant capital works or use of short-term loans.
(11) High pumping cost - is influenced mainly by topography and geography. As noted on page 17, the LWU may be able to achieve significant savings in energy cost.
There is a strong correlation between the operating cost (OMA) per property and the number of employees per 1000 properties.
Similar considerations to those listed in this section apply to sewerage. In addition, a significant cost impactor is whether the LWU is operating nutrient removal facilities at its treatment works.
5.2 BENCHMARKINGEach LWU can improve its performance in areas of apparent under-performance by benchmarking its key work processes with those of 1 or 2 high-performing similar LWUs and implementing the best-practices thus identified. This will provide better customer service, reduced environmental impact and better value-for-money for the community.
In addition, each LWU should undertake “Syndicate Benchmarking” with a group of LWUs with similar characteristics in order to determine current best-practice and to identify existing practices which each LWU can improve. Such process benchmarking should be highly cost-effective for all NSW LWUs.
19
6 GENERAL NOTES
1 To provide a balanced view of the long-term sustainability of Local Water Utilities (LWUs), a triple bottom line (TBL) accounting focus has been adopted, with performance reported on the basis of Social, Environmental and Economic indicators. As noted on page ii, this report discloses performance on the basis of the 107 LWUs existing in July 2004.
2 Where an LWU has not reported an item for 2004/05, the value previously reported has been used where appropriate, otherwise an estimate has been used based on results for similar utilities. Such values are shown in italics bold in Appendices D to F. These values are also shown in the relevant figures.
3 This report has been prepared on a “perconnected property” basis for consistency with national performance reporting. A connected property is a property that is connected to the system, as opposed to an assessment which is a bill issued by a water utility. Factors that influence this indicator are the number of vacant blocks (with no connection but which are billed as an assessment) and the number of multiple dwellings (eg. blocks of flats or units) with a single assessment.
4 The number of connected properties is calculated as the product of the number of assessments times the ratio of the number of connected properties per assessment for each of water supply and sewerage. For any utility there is minimal change in this ratio of the number of connected properties per assessment from year to year. DEUS has worked with LWUs to establish these ratios. Where warranted for a particular LWU, these ratios are updated from time to time.
5 The typical residential bill per assessment is the annual bill paid by a residential customer using the LWU’s average annual residential water consumption and is the principal indicator of the overall cost of a water supply or sewerage system. Pensioners pay a lower amount due to the $87.50 pensioner rebate as do owners of vacant lots as they pay no water usage charges.
6 The 2005/06 typical residential bill is based on a customer of the LWU’s principal water supply or sewerage system using the LWU’s 2004/05 average annual residential water consumption. These bills and tariff details are shown in Appendix E (water supply) and Appendix F (sewerage). The typical residential bill for 2004/05 and previous years is based on the reported average annual residential potable water consumption for that year (2004/05 residential consumptions are shown in column 3 of Appendix D).
7 The average residential bill per connected property (Appendices E and F) comprises the LWU’s revenue from residential rates and charges, including residential sales of water, divided by the number of connected residential properties. Except for utilities with an inclining block tariff or an annual water allowance, and those with access charges not independent of land value, the average residential bill is less than the typical residential bill due to pensioner rebates and vacant lots.
8 The typical developer charges reported for Sydney Water Corporation and Hunter Water Corporation are for new release areas.
9 Drinking water quality guidelines have become more stringent. This report reports compliance with the 1996 NHMRC/ARMCANZ Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (National Health and Medical Research Council/Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand).
An LWU has complied with the guidelines for microbiological water quality (ie. it had 100% compliance) if the required number of samples was tested and at least 98% of the samples contained no E. coli. For LWUs which did not comply, the percentage of samples complying is reported.
GENERAL NOTES
20
10 The average annual residential potable water consumption per connected property is shown in Appendix D as noted above. Where an LWU has not separately reported its residential water consumption, such consumption has been estimated using the Statewide average of 54% of the LWU’s total potable water consumption.
11 LWUs had a dual water supply to over 50% of their residential customers in June 2004 (ie. with a potable supply for indoor use and a non-potable supply for outdoor use).
The total annual residential water consumption (ie. potable + non-potable) for those LWUs with a dual water supply in 2004/05 is shown below, together with their potable residential water consumption in brackets. The total and potable consumptions were: Balranald 790 (150), Berrigan 450 (141), Bourke 1,780 (500), Central Darling 550 (83), Hay 670 (140), Jerilderie 450 (217), Murray 390 (179), Wakool 1000 (530), Walgett 1100 (450), Warren 380 (170) and Wentworth 680 (104).
Note that as the potable residential consumption shown above for Berrigan, Central Darling, Murray, Walgett and Wakool is calculated only for those towns with a dual supply (ie. excluding towns with only a potable water supply), it is lower than the value reported in column 3 of Appendix D.
The typical residential bill has been calculated for those LWUs with a dual supply using the above consumptions.
11 For consistency with national performancereporting, water losses include apparent losses (unbilled unmetered consumption, unauthorised consumption and under-registration of customer meters) plus real losses (leakage).
12 A review of water losses (including apparent losses) for NSW water utilities responsible for reticulating water supply to residential customers has found a minimum of 10% of total potable water supplied. The values for any such utilities reporting less than 10% water losses have been increased to 10% and the reported values for total water supplied have been increased accordingly. Similarly, as minimum real losses (ie. leakage) for such utilities have been found to be at least 6% of the potable water supplied, reported values of real losses of less than 6% have been increased to 6%. The adjusted values are shown in italics bold in Table 8 of the 2004/05 NSW Water Supply and Sewerage Benchmarking Report.
13 Total annual water supplied comprises the sum of the potable water supplied plus the non-potable water supplied less the recycled water. Recycled water is a component of the non-potable supply which also includes raw water.
14 The operation, maintenance and administration (OMA) costs for water supply reticulators include the OMA cost for the bulk supplier on the basis of the volume of water supplied to the reticulator divided by the total volume supplied by the bulk supplier to all customers. For example for Cootamundra, the OMA cost of $319/property comprises $223/property for the bulk supply from Goldenfields (bulk supplier) plus $96 for the reticulator (Cootamundra).
15 Bulk Storage - utilities that provide bulk storage dams for their water supply incur significant capital and operating costs for these facilities, resulting in a higher typical residential bill and operating cost per property (refer to section 5.1 (2) on page 18). The following non-metropolitan utilities provided such bulk storage: Armidale, Ballina, Bathurst, Bega Valley, Bourke, Brewarrina, Byron (Mullumbimby), Cabonne, Central Tablelands, Cobar, Coffs Harbour, Country Energy, Eurobodalla, Fish River, Glen Innes-Severn, Gosford, Goulburn Mulwaree, Guyra, Inverell, Kempsey, Kyogle, Lachlan, Lithgow, MidCoast, Mid Western Regional, Moree Plains, Orange, Palerang, Parkes, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Rous, Shoalhaven, Tamworth, Tenterfield, Tweed, Upper Hunter, Upper Lachlan, Uralla, Warrumbungle, Wingecarribee, Wyong, Yass Valley.
16 Unfiltered - refers to a utility with over 50% of its supply comprising an unfiltered surface water supply ie. the utility does not have a water treatment works involving at least filtration and disinfection for 50% of its supply. Groundwater - refers to a utility with over 50% of its supply comprising good quality unfiltered groundwater.Reticulator - refers to a utility which purchases over 70% of its source water from a bulk supplier and reticulates water to householders in its area. Bulk Supplier - refers to a utility whose main task is to provide a piped bulk water supply to other utilities, rather than reticulating water to householders. Dual Supply - refers to a utility with a potable reticulated water supply for indoor uses and a separate non-potable supply reticulated for outdoor uses to over 50% of its residential customers (refer to Note 10 above).
17 The performance indicators shown for Sydney Water Corporation and Hunter Water Corporation were obtained from WSAA facts 2005.
21
1Ty
pica
l Res
iden
tial B
ill –
Wat
er S
uppl
y an
d Se
wer
age
2001
/02
2002
/03
2003
/0420
04/05
2005
/06
Para
met
er:
(200
5/06 A
vera
ge R
eside
ntial
Wate
r Con
sump
tion
x 20
05/06
Wate
r Usa
ge C
harg
e) +
200
5/06 W
ater a
nd S
ewer
age A
cces
s Cha
rges
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e 200
5/06 S
tatew
ide m
edian
typic
al re
siden
tial b
ill for
wate
r sup
ply an
d sew
erag
e is $
700 p
er as
sess
ment.
3.
For
gene
ral n
otes s
ee pa
ge 19
..
Upda
ted S
eptem
ber 2
006
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
5/06 t
ypica
l resid
entia
l wate
r bill
for w
ater a
nd se
wera
ge su
pply
for ea
ch Lo
cal W
ater U
tility
(LWU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
ertie
s ser
ved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10,00
0, 1,5
01 to
3,00
0an
d 200
to 1,
500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repre
sents
one L
WU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pro
perty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,00
0), th
e 200
5/06 t
ypica
l resid
entia
l wate
r bill
for w
ater a
nd se
wera
ge su
pply
for th
e 25 L
WUs
show
n ran
ges f
rom
$535
to
$116
0. R
esult
s for
the p
revio
us 4
year
s are
also s
hown
in Ja
n 200
6$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
HUNTERWATER
GOSFORD
BALLINA
COUNTRYENERGY
SYDNEYWATER
ORANGE
BATHURSTREGIONAL
BYRON
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
EUROBODALLA
KEMPSEY
WYONG
BEGA VALLEY
GOULBURN MULWAREE
ALBURY
COFFS HARBOUR
MIDCOAST
LISMORE
WINGECARRIBEE
DUBBO
TWEED
CLARENCEVALLEY
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
SHOALHAVEN
QUEANBEYAN
0
500
1000
1500
$/assessment 3,001
-10,0
00 p
rope
rties
GUNNEDAH
LEETON
NAMBUCCA
NARRABRI
COROWA
LITHGOW
SINGLETON
INVERELL
BELLINGEN
GRIFFITH
BERRIGAN
COWRA
YOUNG
FORBES
PARKES
UPPER HUNTER
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
COOMA-MONARO
RICHMONDVALLEY
SNOWY RIVER
MUSWELLBROOK
TUMUT
MOREE PLAINS
0
500
1000
1500
$/assessment 1501
-300
0 pr
oper
ties
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
COONAMBLE
GLEN INNESSEVERN
DUNGOG
MURRAY
TENTERFIELD
COBAR
NARRANDERA
YASS VALLEY
PALERANG
UPPERLACHLAN
NARROMINE
WENTWORTH
DENILIQUIN
WELLINGTON
KYOGLE
LACHLAN
COOTAMUNDRA
WARRUMBUNGLE
0
500
1000
1500
$/assessment 200-
1500
pro
perti
es
GUNDAGAI
GREATER HUME
URALLA
WALCHA
HAY
BOOROWA
GILGANDRA
WARREN
BALRANALD
BOGAN
GUYRA
BOMBALA
WAKOOL
CENTRALDARLING
CABONNE
CARRATHOOL
TUMBARUMBA
GLOUCESTER
GWYDIR
BREWARRINA
BOURKE
JERILDERIE
WALGETT
OBERON
MURRUMBIDGEE
0
500
1000
1500
$/assessment
22
2Ty
pica
l Res
iden
tial B
ill –
Wat
er S
uppl
y
2001
/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
Para
met
er:
(200
4/05 A
vera
ge R
eside
ntial
Wate
r Con
sump
tion x
2005
/06 W
ater U
sage
Cha
rges)
+ 200
5/06 A
cces
s Cha
rge
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e 200
5/06 S
tatew
ide m
edian
typic
al res
identi
al bil
l for w
ater s
upply
is $3
30 pe
r ass
essm
ent.
3. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
Upda
ted S
eptem
ber 2
006
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
5/06 t
ypica
l resid
entia
l bill
for w
ater s
upply
for e
ach L
ocal
Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
ertie
s ser
ved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10,00
0, 1,5
01 to
3,00
0 and
200 t
o 1,50
0.
Each
whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the s
econ
d gra
ph (p
rope
rty ra
nge f
rom
3,001
to 10
,000)
, the
typica
l resid
entia
l bill
in 20
05/06
for t
he 25
LWUs
show
n ran
ges f
rom
$240
to $5
70 pe
r ass
essm
ent. R
esult
s for
the p
revio
us 4
year
s ar
e also
show
n in J
an 20
06$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
GOSFORD
TWEED
BALLINA
RIVERINA
BEGA VALLEY
SYDNEYWATER
BYRON
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
ORANGE
QUEANBEYAN
MIDCOAST
EUROBODALLA
GOULBURN MULWAREE
SHOALHAVEN
ALBURY
KEMPSEY
CLARENCEVALLEY
HUNTERWATER
COUNTRYENERGY
BATHURSTREGIONAL
LISMORE
COFFS HARBOUR
DUBBO
WYONG
WINGECARRIBEE
025
050
0
750
1000
$/assessment 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
GRIFFITH
BERRIGAN
YOUNG
MUSWELLBROOK
MOREE PLAINS
COWRA
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
BELLINGEN
SINGLETON
LEETON
INVERELL
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
RICHMONDVALLEY
FORBES
GUNNEDAH
NAMBUCCA
COOMA-MONARO
UPPER HUNTER
PARKES
NARRABRI
LITHGOW
TUMUT
COROWA
SNOWY RIVER
0
250
500
750
1000
$/assessment 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
GLEN INNESSEVERN
DUNGOG
UPPERLACHLAN
YASS VALLEY
MURRAY
COONAMBLE
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
NARROMINE
DENILIQUIN
WENTWORTH
PALERANG
COOTAMUNDRA
TENTERFIELD
NARRANDERA
WELLINGTON
COBAR
KYOGLE
LACHLAN
WARRUMBUNGLE
0
250
500
750
1000
$/assessment 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
WALGETT
GWYDIR
WAKOOL (1078)
GILGANDRA
TUMBARUMBA
HAY
GUYRA
GLOUCESTER
WARREN
BOOROWA
BOMBALA
WALCHA
GREATER HUME
BOGAN
OBERON
CABONNE
BALRANALD
MURRUMBIDGEE
GUNDAGAI
CENTRALDARLING
JERILDERIE
BREWARRINA
BOURKE
CARRATHOOL
URALLA
0
250
500
750
1000
$/assessment
23
3Ty
pica
l Res
iden
tial B
ill –
Sew
erag
e
2001
/0220
02/0
320
03/04
2004
/0520
05/0
6Pa
ram
eter
:Re
siden
tial A
cces
s Cha
rge
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e 200
5/06 S
tatew
ide m
edian
typic
al re
siden
tial b
ill for
sewe
rage
supp
ly is
$370
per a
sses
smen
t.3.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pag
e 19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
5/06 t
ypica
l resid
entia
l bill
for se
wera
ge fo
r eac
h Loc
al W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gr
oups
base
d on t
he nu
mber
of co
nnec
ted pr
oper
ties s
erve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000 a
nd 20
0 to
1,500
. Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
range
from
3,00
1 to 1
0,000
), the
2005
/06 ty
pical
resid
entia
l bill
for se
wera
ge fo
r the 2
6 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m ab
out $
230 t
o $70
0. R
esult
s for
the
prev
ious 4
year
s are
also s
hown
in J
an 20
06$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
ORANGE
QUEANBEYAN
WAGGA WAGGA
BATHURSTREGIONAL
ALBURY
WYONG
CLARENCEVALLEY
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
HUNTER WATER
TWEED
SYDNEY WATER
DUBBO
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
GOULBURNMULWAREE
SHOALHAVEN
WINGECARRIBEE
EUROBODALLA
BALLINA
COFFS HARBOUR
MIDCOAST
LISMORE
GOSFORD
0
250
500
$/assessment 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
PARKES
GUNNEDAH
COUNTRYENERGY
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
COROWA
INVERELL
UPPER HUNTER
YOUNG
SINGLETON
GRIFFITH
NAMBUCCA
LITHGOW
HAWKESBURY
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
COWRA
NARRABRI
FORBES
KEMPSEY
MOREEPLAINS
MUSWELLBROOK
TUMUT
BYRON
COOMA-MONARO
BEGA VALLEY
RICHMONDVALLEY
SNOWY RIVER
0
250
500
$/assessment 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
LEETON
TEMORA
COBAR
GREATERHUME
COONAMBLE
LACHLAN
BERRIGAN
NARRANDERA
BLAND
WENTWORTH
BELLINGEN
DENILIQUIN
WELLINGTON
YASS VALLEY
COOTAMUNDRA
PALERANG
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
WARRUMBUNGLE
GLEN INNESSEVERN
CABONNE
0
250
500
$/assessment 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
WEDDIN
URANA
GUNDAGAI
OBERON
WALCHA
BALRANALD
HARDEN
BOGAN
HAY
DUNGOG
BOMBALA
URALLA
WAKOOL
BREWARRINA
WARREN
BOURKE
KYOGLE
GLOUCESTER
TUMBARUMBA
CENTRALDARLING
MURRUMBIDGEE
COOLAMON
TENTERFIELD
CARRATHOOL
LOCKHART
WALGETT
GUYRA
JERILDERIE
BLAYNEY
GILGANDRA
JUNEE
GWYDIR
UPPER LACHLAN
0
250
500
$/assessment
24
4C
hem
ical
Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
ompl
ianc
e - W
ater
Sup
ply
2000
/0120
01/0
220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:Pe
rcenta
ge of
distr
ibutio
n sys
tem w
ater s
ample
s com
plying
with
chem
ical c
riteria
of th
e 199
6 NHM
RC/A
RMCA
NZ A
ustra
lian D
rinkin
g W
ater G
uideli
nes
Note
s:
1. 2.96
% of
all c
hemi
cal s
ample
s tes
ted in
2004
/05 ac
hieve
d 100
% co
mplia
nce w
ith th
ese g
uideli
nes.
86%
of th
e LW
Us co
mplie
d with
the g
uideli
nes i
n 200
4/05.
3.Fo
r LW
Us w
ith m
ore t
han o
ne w
ater t
reatm
ent w
orks
, the r
epor
ted co
mplia
nce h
as be
en pr
o-rate
d on t
he ba
sis of
the n
umbe
r of s
ample
s tes
ted at
each
trea
tmen
t wor
ks.
4.Th
e stat
ewide
med
ian ch
emica
l wate
r qua
lity co
mplia
nce i
s 100
%.
5. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 d
istrib
ution
syste
m co
mplia
nce w
ith th
e 199
6 NHR
MC/A
RMCA
NZ A
ustra
lian D
rinkin
g Wate
r Guid
eline
s for
chem
ical w
ater q
uality
for e
ach L
ocal
Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
co
nnec
ted pr
oper
ties s
erve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000 a
nd 20
0 to 1
,500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,00
0), th
e che
mica
l wate
r qua
lity co
mplia
nce f
or
the 25
LWUs
show
n ran
ges f
rom
100%
to 80
%. R
esult
s for
the p
revio
us 4
year
s are
also
show
n.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
BATHURSTREGIONAL
COFFS HARBOUR
SYDNEY WATER
HUNTER WATER
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
RIVERINA
LISMORE
EUROBODALLA
BALLINA
CLARENCEVALLEY
ALBURY
MIDCOAST
GOLDENFIELDS
WINGECARRIBEE
COUNTRYENERGY
QUEANBEYAN
ORANGE
KEMPSEY
BYRON
GOSFORD
WYONG
DUBBO
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
SHOALHAVEN
BEGA VALLEY
GOULBURN MULWAREE
TWEED
020406080100
%
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
FORBES
COWRA
COOMA-MONARO
SNOWY RIVER
BELLINGEN
COROWA
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
LEETON
GRIFFITH
BERRIGAN
PARKES
GUNNEDAH
MOREE PLAINS
TUMUT
LITHGOW
INVERELL
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
YOUNG
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
MUSWELLBROOK
RICHMONDVALLEY
UPPER HUNTER
NAMBUCCA
NARRABRI
SINGLETON
020406080100
%
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
DUNGOG
TENTERFIELD
GLEN INNESSEVERN
COONAMBLE
NARROMINE
PALERANG
COBAR
MURRAY
DENILIQUIN
LACHLAN
NARRANDERA
UPPER LACHLAN
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
WARRUMBUNGLE
COOTAMUNDRA
YASS VALLEY
KYOGLE
WELLINGTON
WENTWORTH
020406080100
%
200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
CARRATHOOL
TUMBARUMBA
WARREN
HAY
WAKOOL
GREATER HUME
WALGETT
BOMBALA
GUNDAGAI
URALLA
CABONNE
GLOUCESTER
GILGANDRA
GUYRA
BOOROWA
BOGAN
BOURKE
BREWARRINA
GWYDIR
CENTRALDARLING
BALRANALD
WALCHA
JERILDERIE
OBERON
020406080100
%
25
5E-
Col
i Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
ompl
ianc
e - W
ater
Sup
ply
2000
/0120
01/0
220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:Pe
rcenta
ge of
distr
ibutio
n sys
tem w
ater s
ample
s com
plying
with
E. c
oli cr
iteria
of th
e 199
6 NHM
RC/A
RMCA
NZ A
ustra
lian D
rinkin
g Wqte
r Guid
eline
s
Note
s:
1. 2.Mi
crobio
logica
l com
plian
ce co
vers
both
E. co
li and
total
colifo
rms.
The h
ealth
-relat
ed pa
rame
ter is
E. c
oli -
98%
of al
l sam
ples t
ested
in 20
04/05
conta
ined n
o E. c
oli. 7
8% of
the L
WUs
comp
lied w
ith th
e 199
6 Guid
eline
s for
E. c
oli in
2004
/053.
For L
WUs
with
mor
e tha
n one
wate
r tre
atmen
t wor
ks, th
e rep
orted
comp
lianc
e has
been
pro-r
ated o
n the
basis
of th
e num
ber o
f sam
ples t
ested
at ea
ch tr
eatm
ent w
orks
.4.
The s
tatew
ide m
edian
micr
obiol
ogica
l wate
r qua
lity co
mplia
nce i
s 100
%.
5. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 d
istrib
ution
syste
m co
mplia
nce w
ith th
e 199
6 NHR
MC/A
RMCA
NZ A
ustra
lian D
rinkin
g Wate
r Guid
eline
s for
E. c
oli fo
r eac
h Loc
al W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gr
oups
base
d on t
he nu
mber
of co
nnec
ted
prop
ertie
s ser
ved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10,00
0, 1,5
01 to
3,00
0 and
200 t
o 1,50
0. E
ach w
hite b
ar re
pres
ents
one L
WU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pr
oper
ty ran
ge fr
om 3,
001 t
o 10,0
00),
the E
.coli w
ater q
uality
comp
lianc
e for
the 2
5 LW
Us
show
n ran
ges f
rom 10
0% to
79%.
Res
ults f
or th
e pre
vious
4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
ALBURY
WYONG
LISMORE
BATHURSTREGIONAL
ORANGE
COFFS HARBOUR
TWEED
KEMPSEY
SHOALHAVEN
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
CLARENCEVALLEY
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
WINGECARRIBEE
EUROBODALLA
GOULBURN MULWAREE
RIVERINA
QUEANBEYAN
BALLINA
GOLDENFIELDS
GOSFORD
SYDNEYWATER
MIDCOAST
BYRON
COUNTRYENERGY
BEGA VALLEY
DUBBO
HUNTERWATER
020406080100
%
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
SINGLETON
LEETON
INVERELL
GRIFFITH
BERRIGAN
RICHMONDVALLEY
LITHGOW
NARRABRI
COWRA
FORBES
YOUNG
SNOWY RIVER
MUSWELLBROOK
COROWA
BELLINGEN
NAMBUCCA
TUMUT
MOREE PLAINS
GUNNEDAH
COOMA-MONARO
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
UPPER HUNTER
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
PARKES
020406080100
%
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
NARRANDERA
LACHLAN
NARROMINE
PALERANG
TENTERFIELD
UPPER LACHLAN
WENTWORTH
WELLINGTON
COONAMBLE
GLEN INNESSEVERN
DUNGOG
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
COOTAMUNDRA
MURRAY
COBAR
YASS VALLEY
KYOGLE
WARRUMBUNGLE
DENILIQUIN020406080100
%
200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties HAY
WALCHA
GILGANDRA
CENTRALDARLING
BREWARRINA
OBERON
WAKOOL
GREATER HUME
BOMBALA
CABONNE
BALRANALD
BOGAN
BOOROWA
GLOUCESTER
JERILDERIE
GWYDIR
WARREN
URALLA
WALGETT
GUYRA
BOURKE
CARRATHOOL
TUMBARUMBA
GUNDAGAI
MURRUMBIDGEE
020406080100
%
26
6W
ater
Qua
lity
Com
plai
nts
- W
ater
Sup
ply
2000
/0120
01/0
220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:No
. of W
ater Q
uality
Com
plaint
s (46
a) x
1000
[No.
of Re
siden
tial A
sses
smen
ts (Q
4a) +
No.
of No
n-Re
siden
tial A
sses
smen
ts (Q
4b) ]
x No
. of C
onne
cted P
rope
rties p
er A
sses
smen
tNo
tes:
1. 2.
The s
tatew
ide m
edian
numb
er of
wate
r qua
lity co
mplai
nts is
5 pe
r 100
0 pro
pertie
s.3.
For
gene
ral n
otes s
ee pa
ge 19
.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 n
umbe
r of w
ater q
uality
comp
laints
per 1
000 c
onne
cted p
rope
rties f
or ea
ch Lo
cal W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gr
oups
base
d on t
he nu
mber
of co
nnec
ted pr
oper
ties s
erve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to
3,000
and 2
00 to
1,50
0. E
ach w
hite b
ar re
pres
ents
one L
WU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pr
oper
ty ra
nge f
rom
3,001
to 10
,000)
, the
water
quali
ty co
mplai
nts fo
r the
25 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s from
abou
t nil t
o 96 p
er 10
00 co
nnec
ted
prop
ertie
s. T
he fiv
e LW
Us on
the r
ight d
id no
t rep
ort th
is ind
icator
for 2
004/0
5. Re
sults
for t
he pr
eviou
s 4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
BALLINA
ALBURY
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
DUBBO
SYDNEYWATER
LISMORE
SHOALHAVEN
BEGA VALLEY
COFFS HARBOUR
WYONG
TWEED
KEMPSEY
CLARENCEVALLEY
GOULBURN MULWAREE
GOSFORD
BATHURSTREGIONAL
BYRON
HUNTERWATER
MIDCOAST
RIVERINA
ORANGE
QUEANBEYAN
COUNTRYENERGY
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
GOLDENFIELDS
WINGECARRIBEE
EUROBODALLA
010203040per 1000 properties
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
GUNNEDAH
RICHMONDVALLEY
COOMA-MONARO
LEETON
BERRIGAN
GRIFFITH
NAMBUCCA
TUMUT
SINGLETON
PARKES
BELLINGEN
INVERELL
COROWA
SNOWY RIVER
YOUNG
FORBES
COWRA (96)
NARRABRI
UPPER HUNTER
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
MUSWELLBROOK
MOREE PLAINS
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
LITHGOW
010203040
per 1000 properties
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
MURRAY
COBAR
DUNGOG
PALERANG
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
YASS VALLEY
GLEN INNESSEVERN
KYOGLE
DENILIQUIN
NARRANDERA
LACHLAN
COONAMBLE
TENTERFIELD
COOTAMUNDRA
NARROMINE
WARRUMBUNGLE
WELLINGTON
UPPERLACHLAN
WENTWORTH
010203040
per 1000 properties
200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
WAKOOL
WALGETT
GUYRA
WALCHA
GLOUCESTER
BOMBALA
JERILDERIE
GILGANDRA
BOURKE
WARREN
GWYDIR
TUMBARUMBA
BALRANALD
GUNDAGAI
URALLA
CABONNE
OBERON
BOGAN
CARRATHOOL
MURRUMBIDGEE
BREWARRINA
CENTRALDARLING
GREATER HUME
010203040
per 1000 properties
27
7O
dour
Com
plai
nts
- Sew
erag
e
2000
/0120
01/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:[N
o. of
Odou
r Com
plaint
s fro
m T
reatm
ent W
orks
(Q54
a) +
No.
of Od
our C
ompla
ints f
rom
Pum
ping
Stati
ons (
Q54b
) x 10
00[N
o. of
Resid
entia
l Ass
essm
ents
(Q4a
) + N
o. of
Non-
Resid
entia
l Ass
essm
ents
(Q4b
)] x N
o. of
Conn
ected
Pro
pertie
s per
Ass
essm
ent
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e 20
04/05
Stat
ewide
med
ian n
umbe
r of o
dour
comp
laints
is 1
per 1
000
prop
ertie
s.3.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pa
ge 19
.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 n
umbe
r of s
ewag
e od
our c
ompla
ints
for ea
ch Lo
cal W
ater
Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
ertie
s ser
ved –
ove
r 10,0
00, 3
,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000
and 2
00 to
1,
500.
Eac
h wh
ite ba
r rep
rese
nts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,
001 t
o 10
,000)
, the
numb
er of
odou
r com
plaint
s fo
r the
26 L
WUs
show
n ran
ges f
rom
from
0 to
2.7 co
mplai
nts pe
r tho
usan
d co
nnec
ted
prop
ertie
s. Th
e two
LWUs
on th
e righ
t did
not r
epor
t this
indica
tor f
or 20
04/05
. Res
ults f
or th
e pre
vious
4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
WYONG
TWEED
SHOALHAVEN
GOULBURN MULWAREE
MIDCOAST
EUROBODALLA
CLARENCEVALLEY
HUNTERWATER
GOSFORD
WINGECARRIBEE
BALLINA
SYDNEYWATER
COFFS HARBOUR
ALBURY
BATHURSTREGIONAL
LISMORE
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
ORANGE
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
DUBBO
WAGGAWAGGA
QUEANBEYAN
048121620
per 1000 properties 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
YOUNG
UPPER HUNTER
MUSWELLBROOK
NARRABRI
SNOWY RIVER
NAMBUCCA
KEMPSEY
COUNTRYENERGY
TUMUT
GUNNEDAH
COWRA
INVERELL
BYRON
PARKES
COOMA-MONARO
RICHMONDVALLEY
COROWA
GRIFFITH
BEGA VALLEY
LITHGOW
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
MOREE PLAINS
SINGLETON
FORBES
HAWKESBURY
048121620
per 1000 properties 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
CABONNE
YASS VALLEY
LEETON
NARRANDERA
PALERANG
GLEN INNESSEVERN
DENILIQUIN
LACHLAN
TEMORA
BERRIGAN
WENTWORTH
BLAND
BELLINGEN
WELLINGTON
GREATERHUME
COONAMBLE
COBAR
WARRUMBUNGLE
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
COOTAMUNDRA
048121620
per 1000 properties 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
BOGAN
BOMBALA
CARRATHOOL
HAY
COOLAMON
BREWARRINA
WAKOOL
UPPER LACHLAN
TENTERFIELD
URALLA
GILGANDRA
WALGETT
GUNDAGAI
URANA (27)
JUNEE
CENTRALDARLING
LOCKHART
HARDEN
BOURKE
KYOGLE
WEDDIN
WALCHA
GWYDIR
GLOUCESTER
GUYRA
WARREN
OBERON
DUNGOG
BLAYNEY
MURRUMBIDGEE
BALRANALD
JERILDERIE
TUMBARUMBA
048121620
per 1000 properties
28
8Av
erag
e An
nual
Res
iden
tial C
onsu
mpt
ion
- Wat
er S
uppl
y
2000
/0120
01/0
220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:An
nual
Resid
entia
l Con
sump
tion (
Q12a
) x 10
00No
. of R
eside
ntial
Asse
ssme
nts (Q
4a) x
No.
of Co
nnec
ted R
eside
ntial
Prop
ertie
s per
Res
identi
al As
sess
ment
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
estat
ewide
media
nann
ualre
siden
tialw
aterc
onsu
mptio
n is 2
00 kL
/ape
rcon
necte
dpro
perty
.3.
11 LW
Us ha
d a du
al wa
ter su
pply
to ov
er 50
% of
their
resid
entia
l cus
tomer
s in J
une 2
004 (
ie. w
ith a
potab
le su
pply
for in
door
use a
nd a
non-
potab
le su
pply
for ou
tdoor
use)
. Refe
r to N
ote 10
on pa
ge 20
for f
urthe
r infor
matio
n.4.
As no
ted on
page
2, 4
5% of
LWUs
need
ed to
apply
wate
r res
trictio
ns in
2004
/05.
5. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 a
vera
ge an
nual
resid
entia
l pota
ble w
ater c
onsu
mptio
n per
conn
ected
prop
erty
for ea
ch Lo
cal W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gro
ups b
ased
on th
e num
ber o
f con
necte
d pro
pertie
s ser
ved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000 a
nd 20
0 to 1
,500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the s
econ
d gra
ph (p
rope
rty ra
nge f
rom 3,
001 t
o 10,0
00), t
he 20
04/05
ann
ual re
siden
tial w
ater c
onsu
mptio
n for
the 2
5 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m 18
0 to
685 k
L/a pe
r con
necte
d pro
perty
. Res
ults f
or th
e pre
vious
4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
SHOALHAVEN
COFFS HARBOUR
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
GOSFORD
LISMORE
BEGA VALLEY
BATHURSTREGIONAL
CLARENCEVALLEY
QUEANBEYAN
EUROBODALLA
TWEED
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
GOULBURN MULWAREE
BALLINA
HUNTERWATER
WYONG
KEMPSEY
MIDCOAST
SYDNEYWATER
BYRON
WINGECARRIBEE
COUNTRYENERGY
ORANGE
RIVERINA
ALBURY
DUBBO
0
250
500
750
kL/property 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
FORBES
NARRABRI
LEETON
PARKES
MUSWELLBROOK
COOMA-MONARO
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
RICHMONDVALLEY
TUMUT
LITHGOW
NAMBUCCA
BELLINGEN
INVERELL
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
UPPER HUNTER
YOUNG
BERRIGAN
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
COWRA
SINGLETON
MOREE PLAINS
GUNNEDAH
SNOWY RIVER
COROWA
GOLDENFIELDSReticulator
0
250
500
750
kL/property 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
PALERANG
NARROMINE
DENILIQUIN
WARRUMBUNGLE
NARRANDERA
WENTWORTH
COOTAMUNDRA
MURRAY
YASS VALLEY
GLEN INNESSEVERN
DUNGOG
TENTERFIELD
UPPERLACHLAN
KYOGLE
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
COBAR
WELLINGTON
LACHLAN
COONAMBLE
0
250
500
750
kL/property 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
JERILDERIE
HAY
OBERON
WALCHA
BALRANALD
CABONNE
GLOUCESTER
BOOROWA
GUNDAGAI
CENTRALDARLING
CARRATHOOL
WALGETT
BOURKE
WARREN
URALLA
GREATER HUME
BOGAN
GILGANDRA
TUMBARUMBA
GWYDIR
GUYRA
BOMBALA
WAKOOL
MURRUMBIDGEE
BREWARRINA
0
250
500
750
kL/property
29
9C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith B
OD
in L
icen
ce -
Sew
erag
e
2000
/0120
01/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05
Para
met
er:
Perce
ntage
of sa
mples
comp
lying
with
90 pe
rcenti
le De
partm
ent o
f Env
ironm
ent a
nd C
onse
rvatio
n (DE
C) lic
ence
limits
for B
ioche
mica
l Oxy
gen D
eman
d (BO
D) (Q
50a)
Note
: 1.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pag
e 19.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties ORANGE
QUEANBEYAN
BATHURSTREGIONAL
LISMORE
SYDNEYWATER
GOSFORD
SHOALHAVEN
GOULBURNMULWAREE
HUNTERWATER
BALLINA
COFFS HARBOUR
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
MIDCOAST
EUROBODALLA
DUBBO
ALBURY
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
WAGGAWAGGA
TWEED
CLARENCEVALLEY
WINGECARRIBEE
0255075100
% of samples 3,00
1 to
10,00
0 pro
perti
es
GUNNEDAH
COUNTRYENERGY
SINGLETON
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
YOUNG
COWRA
RICHMONDVALLEY
UPPER HUNTER
INVERELL
BYRON
KEMPSEY
BEGA VALLEY
SNOWY RIVER
MUSWELLBROOK
NAMBUCCA
TUMUT
FORBES
GRIFFITH
PARKES
0255075100
% of samples 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
YASS VALLEY
GLEN INNESSEVERN
TEMORA
WENTWORTH
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
COONAMBLE
BLAND
WELLINGTON
DENILIQUIN
CABONNE
NARRANDERA
GREATERHUME
BERRIGAN
BELLINGEN
LACHLAN
PALERANG
LEETON
COOTAMUNDRA
0255075100
% of samples 200 t
o 1,
500 p
rope
rties
HAY
UPPER LACHLAN
BOMBALA
BLAYNEY
URALLA
LOCKHART
GILGANDRA
GLOUCESTER
OBERON
TENTERFIELD
WALCHA
KYOGLE
MURRUMBIDGEE
JUNEE
GWYDIR
HARDEN
JERILDERIE
GUYRA0255075100
% of samples
30
10C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith S
S in
Lic
ence
- Se
wer
age
2000
/01
2001
/0220
02/03
2003
/0420
04/0
5
Para
met
er:
Perce
ntag
e of
samp
les co
mplyi
ng w
ith 90
per
centi
le De
partm
ent o
f Env
ironm
ent a
nd C
onse
rvati
on (D
EC) li
cenc
e lim
its fo
r Sus
pend
ed S
olids
(SS)
(Q50
b)
Note
: 1.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pa
ge 19
.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
LISMORE
ORANGE
QUEANBEYAN
GOSFORD
WYONG
COFFS HARBOUR
MIDCOAST
SHOALHAVEN
ALBURY
WAGGAWAGGA
TWEED
DUBBO
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
BATHURSTREGIONAL
WINGECARRIBEE
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
EUROBODALLA
GOULBURN MULWAREE
CLARENCEVALLEY
BALLINA
0255075100
% of samples
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
COUNTRYENERGY
BYRON
BEGA VALLEY
TUMUT
KEMPSEY
NAMBUCCA
RICHMONDVALLEY
YOUNG
PARKES
GUNNEDAH
INVERELL
FORBES
GRIFFITH
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
SINGLETON
COWRA
UPPER HUNTER
SNOWY RIVER
MUSWELLBROOK
0255075100
% of samples
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
CABONNE
DENILIQUIN
BERRIGAN
WENTWORTH
LEETON
GLEN INNESSEVERN
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
BLAND
BELLINGEN
TEMORA
NARRANDERA
YASS VALLEY
GREATERHUME
PALERANG
COONAMBLE
WELLINGTON
LACHLAN
COOTAMUNDRA
0255075100
% of samples 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
UPPER LACHLAN
BOMBALA
BLAYNEY
URALLA
WARREN
GILGANDRA
LOCKHART
JUNEE
HARDEN
MURRUMBIDGEE
WALCHA
GUYRA
OBERON
JERILDERIE
HAY
GLOUCESTER
GWYDIR
TENTERFIELD
KYOGLE
0255075100
% of samples
31
11Se
wer
Ove
rflo
ws
to th
e En
viro
nmen
t - S
ewer
age
2000
/0120
01/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:To
tal N
o. of
Sew
age O
verflo
ws (Q
20) x
100
Leng
th of
Retic
ulatio
n/Gra
vity
Mains
(Q10
a) +
Leng
th of
Risin
g Main
s (Q1
0b)
Note
s:
1. 2. T
he st
atewi
de m
edian
sewe
r ove
rflows
to th
e env
ironm
ent is
11 pe
r 100
km of
sewe
r main
s.3.
24%
of re
portin
g LW
Us re
porte
d no
sewe
r ove
rflows
.4.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pag
e 19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05
sewe
r ove
rflows
to th
e env
ironm
ent fo
r eac
h Loc
al W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gr
oups
base
d on t
he n
umbe
r of c
onne
cted p
rope
rties s
erve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000
, 1,50
1 to 3
,000
and 2
00 to
1,
500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,00
0), th
e 200
4/05 s
ewer
over
flows
to th
e env
ironm
ent fo
r the
20 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m nil
to 2
10 ov
erflo
ws p
er 10
0 km
of se
wer m
ains.
The 6
utilil
ties o
n the
right
did no
t rep
ort th
is ind
icator
for 2
004/0
5. Re
sults
for t
he pr
eviou
s 4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
WYONG
MIDCOAST
BATHURSTREGIONAL
BALLINA
QUEANBEYAN
LISMORE
TWEED
CLARENCEVALLEY
DUBBO
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
ORANGE
EUROBODALLA
WAGGAWAGGA
GOULBURN MULWAREE
HUNTERWATER
WINGECARRIBEE
ALBURY
COFFS HARBOUR
SHOALHAVEN
GOSFORD
SYDNEYWATER
050100
150
200
per 100km of mains 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
SINGLETON
RICHMONDVALLEY
SNOWY RIVER
UPPER HUNTER
MOREE PLAINS
COOMA-MONARO
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
BYRON
TUMUT
KEMPSEY
FORBES
NARRABRI
MUSWELLBROOK
NAMBUCCA
YOUNG (210)
HAWKESBURY
GRIFFITH
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
LITHGOW
COWRA
PARKES
BEGA VALLEY
COUNTRYENERGY
INVERELL
COROWA
GUNNEDAH
050100
150
200
per 100km of mains 1,501
to 3,
000
prop
ertie
s
BERRIGAN
LACHLAN
GREATERHUME
YASS VALLEY
WENTWORTH
COBAR
DENILIQUIN
NARRANDERA
COOTAMUNDRA
BLAND
WELLINGTON
GLEN INNESSEVERN
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
BELLINGEN
LEETON
PALERANG
WARRUMBUNGLE
CABONNE
050100
150
200
per 100km of mains 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
BLAYNEY
TENTERFIELD
GILGANDRA
HAY
UPPER LACHLAN
TUMBARUMBA
WARREN
LOCKHART
BALRANALD
BREWARRINA
JERILDERIE
CENTRALDARLING
URANA
JUNEE
GUYRA
BOURKE
CARRATHOOL
URALLA
HARDEN
OBERON
BOMBALA
GLOUCESTER
KYOGLE
WALCHA
DUNGOG
MURRUMBIDGEE050100
150
200
per 100km of mains
32
12R
ecyc
led
Wat
er (%
of E
fflue
nt R
ecyc
led)
- Se
wer
age
2000
/0120
01/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:To
tal V
olume
Rec
ycled
(Q42
f) x 1
00Vo
lume o
f Sew
age R
eceiv
ing S
econ
dary
Trea
tmen
t (Q4
1c)
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e stat
ewide
med
ian re
use o
f rec
ycled
wate
r is 9%
.3.
Reus
e of r
ecyc
led w
ater w
as ca
rried
out b
y 65%
of LW
Us. S
tatew
ide 20
% of
the e
ffluen
t from
sewa
ge tr
eatm
ent w
orks
was
recy
cled.
4.Fo
r gen
eral
notes
see p
age 1
9.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 r
ecyc
led w
ater (
% of
sewa
ge ef
fluen
t rec
ycled
) for
each
Loca
l Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
ertie
s ser
ved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10,00
0, 1,5
01 to
3,0
00 an
d 200
to 1,
500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,0
00),
the 20
04/05
recy
cled w
ater (
% of
sewa
ge ef
fluen
t rec
ycled
) for
the 1
6 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m 10
0% to
18%
. The
10 LW
Us on
the r
ight d
id no
t rep
ort th
is ind
icator
for 2
004/0
5. Re
sults
for t
he pr
eviou
s 4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
ORANGE
DUBBO
BALLINA
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
CLARENCEVALLEY
COFFS HARBOUR
TWEED
QUEANBEYAN
MIDCOAST
GOSFORD
WYONG
HUNTERWATER
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
WINGECARRIBEE
WAGGAWAGGA
SHOALHAVEN
ALBURY
LISMORE
SYDNEYWATER
BATHURSTREGIONAL
EUROBODALLA
GOULBURNMULWAREE
0255075100
% of Effluent Recycled
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
MOREE PLAINS
BYRON
PARKES
YOUNG
GRIFFITH
KEMPSEY
TUMUT
COWRA
NARRABRI
HAWKESBURY
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
NAMBUCCA
FORBES
GUNNEDAH
BEGA VALLEY
SNOWY RIVER
COOMA-MONARO
SINGLETON
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
MUSWELLBROOK
LITHGOW
COUNTRYENERGY
UPPER HUNTER
COROWA
RICHMONDVALLEY
INVERELL
0255075100
% of Effluent Recycled
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
WENTWORTH
YASS VALLEY
BERRIGAN
LACHLAN
WELLINGTON
PALERANG
NARRANDERA
BELLINGEN
LEETON
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
TEMORA
DENILIQUIN
BLAND
GREATERHUME
COBAR
GLEN INNESSEVERN
COOTAMUNDRA
CABONNE
WARRUMBUNGLE
COONAMBLE
0255075100
% of Effluent Recycled
200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
BLAYNEY
TENTERFIELD
GLOUCESTER
UPPER LACHLAN
BOGAN
TUMBARUMBA
WALCHA
GUYRA
CENTRALDARLING
URANA
WAKOOL
OBERON
BOURKE
GILGANDRA
GUNDAGAI
DUNGOG
BREWARRINA
COOLAMON
JUNEE
JERILDERIE
HARDEN
BOMBALA
WEDDIN
LOCKHART
MURRUMBIDGEE
CARRATHOOL
URALLA
BALRANALD
WALGETT
GWYDIR
HAY
KYOGLE
WARREN
0255075100
% of Effluent Recycled
33
13Ec
onom
ic R
eal R
ate
of R
etur
n - W
ater
Sup
ply
2000
/01
2001
/0220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
Para
met
er:
[Ope
ratin
g Res
ult (W
15) +
Inter
est E
xpen
se (W
4a) -
Inter
est In
come
(W9)
- Gran
ts for
Acq
uisitio
n of A
ssets
(W11
a)] x
100
Writt
en D
own R
eplac
emen
t Cos
t of P
rope
rty, P
lant &
Equ
ipmen
t (W
33)
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e stat
ewide
med
ian w
ater s
upply
ERR
R is
2.3%
.3.
The E
RRR
was n
ot re
porte
d for
Sydn
ey an
d Hun
ter W
ater C
orpo
ration
s from
2001
/02 to
2004
/05. T
he re
porte
d valu
es fo
r retu
rn on
asse
ts ha
ve be
en sh
own f
or th
ese y
ears.
4.Th
e ERR
R inc
ludes
deve
loper
prov
ided a
ssets
and c
apita
l con
tributi
ons f
rom
other
LWUs
.5.
For
gene
ral n
otes s
ee pa
ge 19
.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 w
ater s
upply
econ
omic
real ra
te of
retur
n (ER
RR) f
or ea
ch Lo
cal W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gr
oups
base
d on t
he nu
mber
of co
nnec
ted pr
oper
ties s
erve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000
and 2
00 to
1,50
0. E
ach w
hite b
ar re
pres
ents
one L
WU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pr
oper
ty ra
nge f
rom
3,001
to 10
,000)
, the 2
004/0
5 wate
r sup
ply re
al ra
te of
retur
n for
the 2
4 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m 8%
to -2
%. R
esult
s for
the p
reviou
s 4
year
s are
also s
hown
.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
COFFS HARBOUR
MIDCOAST
SYDNEYWATER
ORANGE
DUBBO
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
ALBURY
CLARENCEVALLEY
BALLINA
GOSFORD
BYRON
BATHURSTREGIONAL
ROUS
GOULBURN MULWAREE
GOLDENFIELDS
COUNTRYENERGY
QUEANBEYAN
BEGA VALLEY
FISH RIVER WS
LISMORE
WYONG
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
RIVERINA
SHOALHAVEN
HUNTERWATER
EUROBODALLA
WINGECARRIBEE
TWEED
KEMPSEY-5051015
% 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
BELLINGEN
MOREE PLAINS
COROWA
MUSWELLBROOK
COOMA-MONARO
YOUNG
NARRABRI
UPPER HUNTER
SINGLETON
GRIFFITH
NAMBUCCA
TUMUT
FORBES
RICHMONDVALLEY
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
BERRIGAN
GUNNEDAH
INVERELL
PARKES
LEETON
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
COWRA
LITHGOW
SNOWY RIVER
-5051015
% 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
WENTWORTH
COONAMBLE
WELLINGTON
YASS VALLEY
COBAR
KYOGLE
NARROMINE
WARRUMBUNGLE
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
TENTERFIELD
LACHLAN
NARRANDERA
MURRAY
DUNGOG
COOTAMUNDRA
UPPER LACHLAN
DENILIQUIN (-6)
GLEN INNESSEVERN
PALERANG
-5051015
% 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
BALRANALD
GUNDAGAI
WARREN
HAY
BOGAN
CENTRALDARLING
WALGETT
BOMBALA
GILGANDRA
CABONNE
WAKOOL
CARRATHOOL
URALLA
GREATER HUME
BOURKE (-6)
JERILDERIE
OBERON
MURRUMBIDGEE
TUMBARUMBA
GLOUCESTER
BOOROWA
BREWARRINA
GWYDIR
WALCHA
GUYRA
-5051015
%
34
14Ec
onom
ic R
eal R
ate
of R
etur
n - S
ewer
age
2000
/0120
01/0
220
02/03
2003
/0420
04/0
5Pa
ram
eter
:[O
pera
ting R
esult
(S16
) + In
teres
t Exp
ense
(S4a
) - In
tere
st In
come
(S10
) - G
rants
for A
cquis
ition o
f Ass
ets (S
12a)
] x 10
0W
ritten
Dow
n Rep
lacem
ent C
ost o
f Pro
perty
, Plan
t & E
quipm
ent (
S34)
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e sta
tewide
med
ian se
wera
ge E
RRR
is 1.8
%.
3.Th
e ERR
R wa
s not
repo
rted f
or S
ydne
y and
Hun
ter W
ater
Cor
pora
tions
from
2001
/02 to
2004
/05. T
he re
porte
d valu
es fo
r retu
rn on
ass
ets ha
ve be
en sh
own f
or th
ese
year
s.4.
The E
RRR
includ
es d
evelo
per p
rovid
ed as
sets
and
capit
al co
ntrib
ution
s fro
m ot
her L
WUs
.5.
For
gen
eral
note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 20
04/05
sewe
rage
econ
omic
real
rate
of re
turn (
ERRR
) for
each
Loca
l Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps b
ased
on t
he n
umbe
r of c
onne
cted p
rope
rties
serve
d – o
ver 1
0,00
0, 3,
001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000
and
200 t
o 1,5
00. E
ach
white
bar r
epre
sents
one
LWU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pr
oper
ty ra
nge
from
3,00
1 to 1
0,00
0), th
e 20
04/05
sewe
rage
real
rate
of re
turn
for th
e 26
LWUs
show
n ran
ges f
rom
15%
to -4
%. R
esult
s for
the
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
COFFS HARBOUR
TWEED
GOULBURN MULWAREE
MIDCOAST
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
SYDNEYWATER
LISMORE
HUNTERWATER
DUBBO
CLARENCEVALLEY
SHOALHAVEN
ALBURY
WAGGAWAGGA
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
EUROBODALLA
WINGECARRIBEE
GOSFORD
WYONG
ORANGE
QUEANBEYAN
BALLINA
BATHURSTREGIONAL
-1001020
%
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
MOREE PLAINS
NAMBUCCA
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
LITHGOW
UPPER HUNTER
TUMUT
BEGA VALLEY
GRIFFITH
COROWA
COOMA-MONARO
SNOWY RIVER
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
MUSWELLBROOK
YOUNG
COWRA
FORBES
PARKES
RICHMONDVALLEY
SINGLETON
KEMPSEY
BYRON
COUNTRYENERGY
INVERELL
NARRABRI
HAWKESBURY
GUNNEDAH
-1001020
%
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
CABONNE
NARRANDERA
LACHLAN
DENILIQUIN
BLAND
PALERANG
GLEN INNESSEVERN
WELLINGTON
COONAMBLE
COBAR
COOTAMUNDRA
WARRUMBUNGLE
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
TEMORA
BELLINGEN
WENTWORTH
BERRIGAN
GREATERHUME
LEETON
YASS VALLEY
-1001020
% 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
DUNGOG
JERILDERIE
BOMBALA
WEDDIN
WAKOOL
TUMBARUMBA
JUNEE
GUYRA
OBERON
URALLA
BALRANALD
UPPER LACHLAN
URANA
HARDEN
KYOGLE
GWYDIR
BLAYNEY
WARREN
BOGAN
TENTERFIELD
WALCHA
HAY
CARRATHOOL
WALGETT
CENTRALDARLING
GILGANDRA
BREWARRINA
GUNDAGAI
BOURKE
LOCKHART
MURRUMBIDGEE
COOLAMON
GLOUCESTER
-1001020
%
35
15O
pera
ting
Cos
t (O
MA
) per
pro
pert
y - W
ater
Sup
ply
2000
/01
2001
/0220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
Para
met
er:
Mana
geme
nt Ex
pens
es (W
1) +
Total
Ope
ratio
ns E
xpen
ses
(W2)
- Pur
chas
e of W
ater +
Bulk
Sup
plier
's OM
A[N
o. of
Resid
entia
l Ass
essm
ents
(Q4a
) + N
o. of
Non-
Resid
entia
l Ass
essm
ents
(Q4b
)] x N
o. of
Conn
ected
Pro
pertie
s per
Ass
essm
ent
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e stat
ewide
med
ian op
erati
ng co
st pe
r con
necte
d prop
erty
is $2
60.
3. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 w
ater s
upply
oper
ating
cost
(OMA
- ope
ration
, main
tenan
ce an
d adm
inistr
ation
) per
prop
erty
for ea
ch Lo
cal W
ater U
tility
(LW
U) in
4 gr
oups
base
d on t
he nu
mber
of co
nnec
ted pr
opert
ies se
rved –
over
10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000 a
nd 20
0 to 1
,500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repre
sents
one L
WU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pr
opert
y ran
ge fr
om 3,
001 t
o 10,0
00),
the 20
04/05
wate
r sup
ply op
erati
ng co
sts fo
r the
25 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m $1
85 to
$455
per c
onne
cted p
rope
rty. R
esult
s for
the p
revio
us 4
year
s are
also
show
n in J
an 20
05$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
FISH RIVER WS
CLARENCEVALLEY
HUNTERWATER
WINGECARRIBEE
QUEANBEYAN
COFFS HARBOUR
SYDNEYWATER
GOLDENFIELDS
EUROBODALLA
BALLINA
DUBBO
LISMORE
MIDCOAST
TWEED
RIVERINA
SHOALHAVEN
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
BEGA VALLEY
ORANGE
BATHURSTREGIONAL
BYRON
WYONG
KEMPSEY
GOSFORD
ALBURY
ROUS
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
GOULBURN MULWAREE
COUNTRYENERGY
0
200
400
600
800
$ per property 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
NAMBUCCA
NARRABRI
GUNNEDAH
FORBES
BELLINGEN
TUMUT
SINGLETON
BERRIGAN
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
PARKES
SNOWY RIVER
COWRA
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
RICHMONDVALLEY
INVERELL
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
GRIFFITH
LEETON
MOREE PLAINS
LITHGOW
YOUNG
MUSWELLBROOK
COOMA-MONARO
COROWA
UPPER HUNTER
0
200
400
600
800
$ per property 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
WENTWORTH
PALERANG
WELLINGTON
UPPER LACHLAN
NARROMINE
MURRAY
DENILIQUIN
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
NARRANDERA
GLEN INNESSEVERN
LACHLAN
WARRUMBUNGLE
COONAMBLE
KYOGLE
YASS VALLEY
COOTAMUNDRA
COBAR
TENTERFIELD
DUNGOG
0
200
400
600
800
$ per property 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
GLOUCESTER
BOOROWA
BREWARRINA
CENTRALDARLING
MURRUMBIDGEE
BOMBALA
GUYRA
GWYDIR
TUMBARUMBA
WALGETT
JERILDERIE
WALCHA
BOGAN
BOURKE
CARRATHOOL
WAKOOL
BALRANALD
CABONNE
WARREN
GUNDAGAI
HAY
URALLA
GILGANDRA
GREATER HUME
OBERON
0
200
400
600
800
$ per property
36
16O
pera
ting
Cos
t (O
MA)
per
pro
pert
y - S
ewer
age
2000
/0120
01/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:Ma
nage
ment
Expe
nses
(S1)
+ T
otal O
pera
tions
Exp
ense
s (S
2) -
Purch
ase o
f Wate
r + B
ulk S
uppli
er's
OMA
[No.
of Re
siden
tial A
sses
smen
ts (Q
4a) +
No.
of No
n-Re
siden
tial A
sses
smen
ts (Q
4b)]
x No.
of Co
nnec
ted P
rope
rties p
er A
sses
smen
tNo
tes:
1. 2.
The s
tatew
ide m
edian
oper
ating
cost
per c
onne
cted p
rope
rty is
$270
.3.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pag
e 19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 w
ater s
upply
oper
ating
cost
(OMA
- op
erati
on, m
ainten
ance
and a
dmini
strati
on) p
er pr
oper
ty for
each
Loca
l Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
ertie
s se
rved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10,00
0, 1,5
01 to
3,00
0 and
200 t
o 1,50
0. E
ach w
hite b
ar re
pres
ents
one L
WU.
As a
n exa
mple,
for t
he se
cond
grap
h (pr
oper
ty ra
nge f
rom
3,001
to 10
,000)
, the
oper
ating
costs
for t
he 25
LWUs
show
n ra
nges
from
$115
to $5
70 pe
r con
necte
d pro
perty
. Res
ults f
or th
e pre
vious
4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own i
n Ja
n 200
5$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
WAGGAWAGGA
HUNTERWATER
SYDNEYWATER
QUEANBEYAN
WYONG
ORANGE
GOSFORD
ALBURY
LISMORE
BATHURSTREGIONAL
TWEED
MIDCOAST
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
SHOALHAVEN
COFFS HARBOUR
DUBBO
BALLINA
GOULBURN MULWAREE
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
EUROBODALLA
CLARENCEVALLEY
WINGECARRIBEE
020
040
060
0
$ per property 3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
GUNNEDAH
YOUNG
PARKES
SINGLETON
COUNTRYENERGY
INVERELL
COROWA
COWRA
NARRABRI
FORBES
LITHGOW
NAMBUCCA
TUMUT
UPPER HUNTER
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
RICHMONDVALLEY
KEMPSEY
HAWKESBURY
COOMA-MONARO
GRIFFITH
BEGA VALLEY
BYRON
MOREE PLAINS
SNOWY RIVER
MUSWELLBROOK
020
040
060
0
$ per property 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
TEMORA
COONAMBLE
CABONNE
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
LACHLAN
GREATERHUME
COBAR
BERRIGAN
WELLINGTON
WENTWORTH
BLAND
DENILIQUIN
YASS VALLEY
NARRANDERA
BELLINGEN
LEETON
COOTAMUNDRA
GLEN INNESSEVERN
PALERANG
WARRUMBUNGLE
020
040
060
0
$ per property 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
OBERON
GLOUCESTER
KYOGLE
BLAYNEY
JERILDERIE
GWYDIR
TENTERFIELD
BREWARRINA
HARDEN
URANA
URALLA
DUNGOG
GUYRA
WAKOOL
BOURKE
CENTRALDARLING
WARREN
TUMBARUMBA
GUNDAGAI
BOGAN
JUNEE
WALCHA
BOMBALA
WALGETT
LOCKHART
COOLAMON
GILGANDRA
BALRANALD
WEDDIN
MURRUMBIDGEE
CARRATHOOL
UPPER LACHLAN
HAY
020
040
060
0
$ per property
37
17O
pera
ting
Cos
t (O
MA
) per
kL
- W
ater
Sup
ply
2000
/01
2001
/0220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
Para
met
er:
Mana
geme
nt Ex
pens
es (W
1) +
Tota
l Ope
ratio
ns E
xpen
ses
(W2)
- Pu
rchas
e of W
ater (
W2o
)To
tal P
otable
Wate
r Sup
plied
(Q12
)No
tes:
1. 2.
The s
tatew
ide m
edian
oper
ating
cost
is 81
c/kL.
3. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 w
ater s
upply
oper
ating
cost
(OMA
- op
erati
on, m
ainten
ance
and a
dmini
strati
on) p
er kL
for e
ach L
ocal
Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
group
s bas
ed on
the n
umbe
r of c
onne
cted p
rope
rties s
erve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000 a
nd 20
0 to 1
,500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,00
0), th
e 200
4/05 o
perat
ing co
sts pe
r kL f
or th
e 25 L
WUs
show
n ran
ges f
rom
21 to
116 c
/kL.
Resu
lts fo
r the
prev
ious 4
year
s are
also
show
n in J
an 20
05$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
RIVERINA
ROUS
SHOALHAVEN
DUBBO
BATHURSTREGIONAL
KEMPSEY
TWEED
COFFS HARBOUR
WYONG
MIDCOAST
BALLINA
ORANGE
LISMORE
GOSFORD
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
BEGA VALLEY
BYRON
GOULBURN MULWAREE
EUROBODALLA
ALBURY
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
GOLDENFIELDS
FISH RIVER WS
QUEANBEYAN
CLARENCEVALLEY
COUNTRYENERGY
WINGECARRIBEE
050100
150
c/kL
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
FORBES
PARKES
UPPER HUNTER
MOREE PLAINS
RICHMONDVALLEY
YOUNG
INVERELL
BELLINGEN
LITHGOW
COWRA
SNOWY RIVER
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
MUSWELLBROOK
SINGLETON
NAMBUCCA
TUMUT
BERRIGAN
LEETON
GRIFFITH
GUNNEDAH
NARRABRI
COOMA-MONARO
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
COROWA
050100
150
c/kL
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
PALERANG
DUNGOG
COONAMBLE
WENTWORTH
DENILIQUIN
COBAR
NARROMINE
MURRAY
KYOGLE
LACHLAN
UPPERLACHLAN (170)
GLEN INNESSEVERN
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
WARRUMBUNGLE
WELLINGTON
COOTAMUNDRA
TENTERFIELD (154)
NARRANDERA
YASS VALLEY
050100
150
c/kL
200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
WALGETT
GLOUCESTER(165)
JERILDERIE
CENTRALDARLING
BOGAN
WAKOOL
GUYRA
GREATER HUME
GILGANDRA
BALRANALD
HAY
MURRUMBIDGEE
CABONNE
BOMBALA
BOURKE
WARREN
BREWARRINA
CARRATHOOL
GWYDIR
OBERON
TUMBARUMBA
BOOROWA
GUNDAGAI
WALCHA
URALLA
050100
150
c/kL
38
18M
anag
emen
t Cos
t Per
pro
pert
y ($
/pro
pert
y) -
Wat
er S
uppl
y
2000
/01
2001
/0220
02/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
Para
met
er:
Admi
nistra
tion C
ost (
W1a
) + E
ngine
ering
Cos
t (W
1b)
[No.
of Re
siden
tial A
sses
smen
ts (Q
4a) +
No.
of No
n-Re
siden
tial A
sses
smen
ts (Q
4b)]
x No.
of Co
nnec
ted P
rope
rties p
er A
sses
smen
tNo
tes:
1. 2.
The s
tatew
ide m
edian
man
agem
ent c
ost is
$100
per c
onne
cted p
rope
rty.
3. F
or ge
nera
l note
s see
page
19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 w
ater s
upply
man
agem
ent c
ost p
er pr
oper
ty for
each
Loca
l Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
erties
serve
d – ov
er 10
,000,
3,001
to 10
,000,
1,501
to 3,
000 a
nd 20
0 to
1,500
. Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,00
0), th
e 200
4/05
man
agem
ent c
osts
per p
rope
rty fo
r the
25 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s from
$35 t
o $27
0. Re
sults
for t
he pr
eviou
s 4 ye
ars a
re
also s
hown
in Ja
n 200
5$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
RIVERINA
MIDCOAST
LISMORE
ROUS
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
COFFS HARBOUR
SHOALHAVEN
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
ORANGE
BYRON
TWEED
BATHURSTREGIONAL
DUBBO
BEGA VALLEY
GOLDENFIELDS
EUROBODALLA
QUEANBEYAN
ALBURY
CLARENCEVALLEY
WINGECARRIBEE
KEMPSEY
FISH RIVER WS
GOSFORD
WYONG
GOULBURN MULWAREE
BALLINA
COUNTRYENERGY
050100
150
200
$/property
3,001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
GUNNEDAH
TUMUT
BERRIGAN
SNOWY RIVER
COWRA (272)
LITHGOW
MUSWELLBROOK
COOMA-MONARO
MOREE PLAINS
INVERELL
LEETON
NAMBUCCA
PARKES
NARRABRI
YOUNG
FORBES
RICHMONDVALLEY
GRIFFITH
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
SINGLETON
COROWA
UPPER HUNTER
BELLINGEN
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
050100
150
200
$/property
1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
NARRANDERA
DUNGOG
UPPER LACHLAN
COBAR
YASS VALLEY
KYOGLE
LACHLAN
MURRAY
WELLINGTON
COOTAMUNDRA
WARRUMBUNGLE
DENILIQUIN
WENTWORTH
NARROMINE
COONAMBLE
GLEN INNESSEVERN
PALERANG
TENTERFIELD
050100
150
200
$/property
200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
BOOROWA
WARREN
JERILDERIE
GLOUCESTER
GUNDAGAI
CENTRALDARLING
GUYRA
GREATER HUME
GILGANDRA
TUMBARUMBA
BOMBALA
HAY
CABONNE
BOURKE
WALCHA
BOGAN
CARRATHOOL
WAKOOL
BALRANALD
WALGETT
BREWARRINA
OBERON
URALLA
MURRUMBIDGEE
GWYDIR
050100
150
200
$/property
39
19M
anag
emen
t Cos
t per
Pro
pert
y - S
ewer
age
2000
/0120
01/02
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:Ad
minis
tratio
n Cos
t (S1
a) +
Engin
eerin
g Cos
t (S1
b)[N
o. of
Resid
entia
l Ass
essm
ents
(Q4a
) + N
o. of
Non-
Resid
entia
l Ass
essm
ents
(Q4b
)] x N
o. of
Conn
ected
Pro
pertie
s per
Ass
essm
ent
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e stat
ewide
med
ian m
anag
emen
t cos
t is $1
00 pe
r con
necte
d pro
perty
.3.
For g
ener
al no
tes se
e pag
e 19.
This
figur
e sho
ws ra
nked
value
s of th
e 200
4/05 w
ater s
upply
man
agem
ent c
ost p
er pr
oper
ty for
each
Loca
l Wate
r Utili
ty (L
WU)
in 4
grou
ps ba
sed o
n the
numb
er of
conn
ected
prop
ertie
s ser
ved –
over
10,00
0, 3,0
01 to
10,00
0, 1,5
01 to
3,0
00 an
d 200
to 1,
500.
Eac
h whit
e bar
repr
esen
ts on
e LW
U. A
s an e
xamp
le, fo
r the
seco
nd gr
aph (
prop
erty
rang
e fro
m 3,0
01 to
10,00
0), th
e 200
4/05 m
anag
emen
t cos
ts fo
r the
25 LW
Us sh
own r
ange
s fro
m $2
0 to $
190.
Resu
lts fo
r the
pr
eviou
s 4 ye
ars a
re al
so sh
own i
n Ja
n 200
5$.
>10,0
00 p
rope
rties
WAGGAWAGGA
LISMORE
QUEANBEYAN
PORT MACQUARIE-
HASTINGS
TAMWORTHREGIONAL
ORANGE
TWEED
COFFS HARBOUR
BALLINA
DUBBO
GOSFORD
SHOALHAVEN
BATHURSTREGIONAL
EUROBODALLA
ALBURY
MIDCOAST
WYONG
GOULBURNMULWAREE
WINGECARRIBEE
CLARENCEVALLEY
050100
150
200
$ per property 3.001
to 10
,000 p
rope
rties
SNOWY RIVER
KEMPSEY
MID-WESTERNREGIONAL
LITHGOW
NAMBUCCA
COROWA
INVERELL
COUNTRYENERGY
MUSWELLBROOK
SINGLETON
NARRABRI
TUMUT
FORBES
PARKES
GUNNEDAH
YOUNG
UPPER HUNTER
MOREE PLAINS
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
BYRON
RICHMONDVALLEY
HAWKESBURY
COWRA
BEGA VALLEY
GRIFFITH
COOMA-MONARO
050100
150
200
$ per property 1,501
to 3,
000 p
rope
rties
PALERANG
GLEN INNESSEVERN
LEETON
BELLINGEN
COBAR
COONAMBLE
TEMORA
LIVERPOOLPLAINS
COOTAMUNDRA
CABONNE
LACHLAN
WENTWORTH
BLAND
GREATERHUME
BERRIGAN
YASS VALLEY
KYOGLE
WELLINGTON
WARRUMBUNGLE
DENILIQUIN
NARRANDERA
050100
150
200
$ per property 200 t
o 1,5
00 p
rope
rties
CENTRALDARLING
URANA
BOGAN
TENTERFIELD(222)
BLAYNEY
URALLA
JERILDERIE
HARDEN
TUMBARUMBA
COOLAMON
OBERON
WARREN
JUNEE
GLOUCESTER
MURRUMBIDGEE
WALCHA
GUNDAGAI
GILGANDRA
BREWARRINA
BALRANALD
WEDDIN
CARRATHOOL
BOMBALA
WAKOOL
LOCKHART
UPPER LACHLAN
BOURKE
KYOGLE
DUNGOG
GUYRA
GWYDIR
WALGETT
HAY
050100
150
200
$ per property
40
20R
even
ue fr
om U
sage
- W
ater
Sup
ply
2002
/0320
03/04
2004
/05Pa
ram
eter
:Re
venu
e fro
m Re
siden
tial U
ser C
harg
es (W
6b) x
100
Reve
nue f
rom R
eside
ntial
Acce
ss C
harg
es (W
6a) +
Rev
enue
from
Res
identi
al Us
er C
harg
es (W
6b)
Para
met
er:
Reve
nue f
rom
Non-
resid
entia
l Use
r Cha
rges
(W7b
) x 10
0Re
venu
e fro
m No
n-res
identi
al Ac
cess
Cha
rges
(W7a
) + R
even
ue fr
om N
on-re
siden
tial U
ser C
harg
es (W
7b)
Note
s:
1. 2.Th
e stat
ewide
med
ian re
siden
tial re
venu
e fro
m wa
ter us
age c
harge
s was
49%
.3.
For
gene
ral n
otes s
ee pa
ge 19
.
Many
LWUs
did n
ot se
para
tely r
epor
t their
reve
nue f
rom
usag
e and
acce
ss ch
arge
s for
each
of re
siden
tial a
nd no
n-re
siden
tial c
ustom
ers i
n Spe
cial S
ched
ule N
o. 3 o
f their
annu
al fin
ancia
l stat
emen
ts. A
ll LW
Us sh
ould
do so
in fu
ture.
Resid
entia
l Rev
enue
from
Usa
ge C
harg
es
MUSWELLBROOKRIVERINA
GOSFORDALBURY
LISMOREGUNDAGAIBYRONTAMWORTH REGIONALTWEED
NAMBUCCAWYONG
BOGANCOFFS HARBOURLEETONGOLDENFIELDS
MOREE PLAINSKYOGLE
YASS VALLEYWENTWORTHNARROMINE
DUBBOUPPER HUNTER
HUNTER WATERCENTRAL DARLINGNARRANDERASINGLETONMURRUMBIDGEEGILGANDRACOBAR
GRIFFITHINVERELLQUEANBEYANLACHLANPORT MACQUARIE-HASTINGSWINGECARRIBEEOBERON
GUYRAMURRAY
COUNTRY ENERGYSHOALHAVEN
URALLAHARDENMID-WESTERN REGIONALBOOROWAGLOUCESTERWALCHAGOULBURN MULWAREE
RICHMOND VALLEYDUNGOGEUROBODALLAWELLINGTON
KEMPSEYCENTRAL TABLELANDS
COROWACOOMA-MONAROBREWARRINATENTERFIELD
UPPER LACHLANYOUNG
ORANGEPARKESTUMUT
NARRABRILITHGOWFORBESLIVERPOOL PLAINSTUMBARUMBA
BOURKEHAYMIDCOASTGUNNEDAHBATHURST REGIONAL
BOMBALABELLINGENBALRANALDGREATER HUMEWARRENCOOTAMUNDRADENILIQUIN
BEGA VALLEYBALLINA
JERILDERIEBERRIGANCOWRA
COONAMBLEWALGETT
CABONNEWAKOOL
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
020406080100
(% of Total Residential Revenue)
Non-
resid
entia
l Rev
enue
from
Usa
ge C
harg
es
PARKES
RIVERINA
NAMBUCCA
COROWA
OBERON
GOLDENFIELDS
MUSWELLBROOK
SHOALHAVEN
UPPER HUNTER
TUMUT
GUNDAGAI
ALBURY
GLOUCESTER
TAMWORTH REGIONAL
LISMORE
BYRON
SINGLETON
GUYRA
GRIFFITH
HAY
LACHLAN
WINGECARRIBEE
COFFS HARBOUR
MURRAY
KYOGLE
PORT MACQUARIE-HASTINGS
KEMPSEY
RICHMOND VALLEY
BREWARRINA
EUROBODALLA
TENTERFIELD
COOTAMUNDRA
COUNTRY ENERGY
GILGANDRA
BATHURST REGIONAL
MURRUMBIDGEE
CENTRAL TABLELANDS
COOMA-MONARO
TUMBARUMBA
WAKOOL
TWEED
BELLINGEN
YOUNG
ARMIDALE DUMARESQ
BALRANALD
BALLINA
BEGA VALLEY
MIDCOAST
BERRIGAN
LIVERPOOL PLAINS
CABONNE
BOMBALA
MOREE PLAINS
GOULBURN MULWAREE
020406080100
(% of Total non-residential Revenue)
APPENDIX A – ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 to 2004/05
41
Metropolitan Water Utilities Country Water UtilitiesMW Melbourne Water Consolidated* NSW NSW CountryACTEW ACT Electricity and Water VIC VIC CountryBCC Brisbane City Council QLD QLD CountrySAW SA Water Corporation (Adelaide) SA SA CountryWCWA WA Water Corporation (Perth) WA WA CountryHW Hunter Water CorporationSWC Sydney Water Corporation
* Melbourne Water was disaggregated into 4 constituent utilities in 1994. Melbourne Water Consolidated results shown for 1994/95 to 2004/05 are either aggregated results of the constituent utilities or consolidated results reported in WSAA Facts (see note 1) or reported in Urban Water Review (see note 2).
NOTES: 1. Results for the metropolitan w ater utilities for 1994/95 to 2004/05 obtained from "The Australian Urban Water Industry - WSAA Facts 2005 ", and "The Australian Urban Water Industry - WSAA Facts 1999 ", Water Services Association of Australia.2. Results for Victoria for 1996/97 to 2004/05 obtained from "Urban Water Review 2004/2005" , and "Urban Water Review 1998 ", Victorian Water Industry Association.
3. Results for SA Country and WA Country for 1990/91 to 1996/97 obtained from "Government Trading Enterprises Performance Indicators 1992/93 to 1996/97" and "1990/91 to 1994/95" , Steering Committee on National Performance Monitoring of Government Trading Enterprises, April 1998.4. Results for QLD Country for 2002/03 and 2003/04 obtained from "Urban Water Service Providers Queensland Report 2003/2004", Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. These results are for 18 large and medium utilities and exclude Brisbane City Council. These results therefore do not report the overall performance of the Queensland country utilities and have been included only for illustrative purposes.5. Results for WA for 1999/2003 obtained from "Water Performance Information on 32 Major WA Towns 1999/2003" , Western Australia Economic Regulation Authority. The results do not include Perth.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Utility Characteristics
1. Properties Served per km of Main (Water)
0
20
40
60
80
100
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
No.
of P
rope
rtie
s
2. Properties Served per km of Main (Sewerage)
0
20
40
60
80
100
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
No.
of P
rope
rtie
s
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
APPENDIX A – ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 to 2004/05
42
NOTES 1. The Typical Residential Bill (TRB) is the annual bill paid by a residential customer using the utility's average annual residential potable water consumption.2. The TRB is the principal indicator of the overall cost of a water supply or sewerage system.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Social
3. Typical Residential Bill (Water)
0
100
200
300
400
500
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
$ pe
r Ass
essm
ent
4. Typical Residential Bill (Sewerage)
0
100
200
300
400
500
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
$ pe
r Ass
essm
ent
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
5. Typical Residential Bill (Water + Sewerage)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
$ pe
r Ass
essm
ent
APPENDIX A – ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 to 2004/05
43
* Microbiological Water Quality Compliance1991 to 1998 results are generally on the basis of the 1987 NHMRC/AWRC Drinking Water Quality Guidelines .1998/99 and subsequent results are generally on the basis of E. coli in the more stringent1996 and 2004 NHMRC/ARMCANZ Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG).The exceptions are Victorian country utilities where results up to 2003/04 are on the basis of the less stringent1984 World Health Organisation Guidelines and which are now on the basis of the Victorian Safe DrinkingWater Regulations 2005, and also Melbourne Water where prior to 2004/05 the results are on the basis ofthe above 1987 Guidelines and which are now on the basis of the 2004 ADWG.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Social (Water)
7. Water Quality Complaints
0
5
10
15
20
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
per 1
000
prop
ertie
s
6. Microbiological Water Quality Compliance* (NHMRC/ARMCANZ Australian Drinking Water Guidelines)
0
20
40
60
80
100
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
Com
plia
nce
(%)
8. Water Main Breaks
0
20
40
60
80
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
No.
of B
reak
s/10
0 km
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
APPENDIX A – ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 to 2004/05
44
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Social (Sewerage)
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Environmental (Water)
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
10. % of Sewage Receiving Secondary Treatment
0
20
40
60
80
100
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
%
9. Sewage Odour Complaints
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
per 1
000
prop
ertie
s
11. Annual Residential Water Consumption
0
100
200
300
400
500
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
kL p
er p
rope
rty
APPENDIX A – ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 to 2004/05
45
+ The major cause of non-compliance in non-metropolitan NSW is due to the grow th of algae in maturation ponds being measured as suspended solids (SS). Most treatment w orks in non-metropolitan NSW have maturation ponds due to previous Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) preference for ponding over chlorination. Negotiations w ith the DEC to develop an appropriate licencing method w hen maturation ponds are used for disinfection have favoured an option to test for SS prior to the maturation ponds. For new installations and major augmentations, Ultra Violet (UV) disinfection is being used rather than maturation ponds to overcome this problem.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Environmental (Sewerage)12. Sewerage Compliance with Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) in
Licence
0
20
40
60
80
100
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
% o
f sam
ples
com
plyi
ng
13. Sewerage Compliance with Suspended Solids (SS) in Licence
0
20
40
60
80
100
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA% o
f sam
ples
com
plyi
ng
+
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
14. Sewer Main Chokes and Collapses
0
50
100
150
200
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
No.
of C
hoke
s/10
0 km
15. Sewer Overflows to the Environment
0
20
40
60
80
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
per 1
00 k
m o
f mai
ns
APPENDIX A – ARMCANZ Performance Comparisons 1991/92 to 2004/05
46
NOTES: 1. As the economic real rate of return (ERRR) w as only reported by Country NSW in 2001/02 to 2004/05, the reported values for "return on assets" has been show n in graph 16 for all the other utilities for these years.
2. Operating Cost (OMA) is the Operation, Maintenance and Administration Cost in 2004/05$.
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS - Economic
17. Operating Cost (OMA) per connected property (Water)
0
100
200
300
400
500
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
Ope
ratin
g C
ost
($/P
rope
rty)
18. Operating Cost (OMA) per connected property (Sewerage)
0
100
200
300
400
500
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WA
Ope
ratin
g C
ost
($/P
rope
rty)
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
16. Economic Real Rate of Return1 (Water & Sewerage)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
M W ACTEW BCC SAW WCWA HW SWC NSW VIC QLD SA WAEcon
omic
Rea
l Rat
e of
R
etur
n (%
)
APPENDIX B – Example TBL SEWERAGE Performance Report
47
Orange City Council Sewerage – Review of Performance An example Performance Report is shown on pages 48 and 49 for Orange City Council Sewerage which has 2 sewage treatment works.
Summary The performance of Orange City Council Sewerage is very good. Orange City Council should continue to monitor and improve its performance and ensure that the business is sustainable. In particular, Council should continue to move to appropriate trade waste and non-residential fees and charges to ensure a positive economic real rate of return and should continue to review the efficiency of the business, focussing on operating cost (OMA) and management cost.
INDICATOR+ ISSUE ANALYSIS / ACTION PLAN
Compliance with Best-Practice Management Guidelines Compliance with the Best-Practice Management
Guidelines. Orange City Council complies with the Best-Practice Management (BPM) Guidelines except for items (6) Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy which is not required until June 2006.
Note 6 Trade waste and non-residential rates and charges provided 5% of the annual rates and charges revenue.
Orange Council should continue to move to appropriate trade waste and non-residential fees and charges to remove present cross subsidies and achieve full cost recovery.
Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Strategy Orange Council should complete and implement an IWCM strategy by June 2006.
Performance Improvement
7 Renewals Expenditure – Ranking of 3(3). However, Council’s maintenance and renewal expenditure is low.
Orange Council should examine its asset management policy and ensure that sufficient funds are directed to maintenance and renewals.
12 Typical residential bill. High ranking# of 1(1). Performance is satisfactory (page 27). Typical residential bill is lower than the statewide median.
10 Employees. Low ranking of 1(1). Excellent performance and is significantly lower than the statewide median.
17, 18, 19 Public health incidents. Not reported. Council should report on this indicator. Report either zero if there
are no incidents or the actual number if there has been any incidents.
20 Capital expenditure on Improving Public Health. Low result with ranking of 3(3).
Council has reported zero expenditure per property. Council should investigate and ensure that this item is not under reported.
21 Odour complaints. High ranking of 1(1). Council has reported zero odour complaints. This is commendable and is a significant improvement on previous years’ results.
22 Service Complaints. Low ranking of (4). Identify cause of poor performance and examine remedial options. 23 Customer Interruption Frequency. Not reported. Council should investigate and report on this indicator 24 Customer Outage Time. Not reported. Council should investigate and report on this indicator
28, 30 Reclaimed Water and Biosolids Reuse. High ranking of 1(1).
Excellent performance for both these indicators.
34, 35 Compliance with BOD and SS in Licence. High ranking of 1(1).
Excellent performance for both these indicators.
36 Sewer Main Chokes and Collapses. Low ranking of 4(4). Identify cause of poor performance and examine remedial options. 39, 40, 41 Environmental Incidents. Not reported. Council should investigate and report on this indicator.
42 Capital Expenditure on Improving Environment. Low result with ranking of 3(3).
Council has reported zero expenditure per property. Council should investigate and ensure that this item is not under reported.
46 Economic Real Rate of Return is 0.2% with ranking of 4(3).
Council should continue to move to full cost recovery for trade waste and non-residential sewerage as indicated for Note 6 above.
49, 50, 51
The operating cost (OMA – Operation, Maintenance and Administration) per property, per 100km of Main and operating cost/kL was low (ranking of 2(3), 2(2) & 2(2) respectively).
Performance is satisfactory. Similarly, Council’s management costs are lower than the median with a ranking of 2(3).
56 The Energy Cost and Sewer Main Operation and Maintenance Cost was high, ranking of 4(4).
Identify cause of poor performance and examine remedial options.
# The ranking relative to similar size LWUs is shown first, followed by the ranking relative to all LWUs within brackets + Orange Council’s results for each indicator are shown on page 48. Performance trends for key indicators over the last 11 years are shown on page 49.
Performance Trends The figures on page 49 indicate good performance, with a lower number of employees per 1000 properties than the Statewide median (Fig 8). Also the typical residential bill is lower than the Statewide median (Fig 12), and typical developer charges are now slightly higher than the Statewide median (Fig 13). Compliance with BOD and SS in the Licence (Fig 34 and 35) were excellent at 100%. Sewer main chokes and collapses and overflows to the environment (Fig 36 and 37) were both slightly higher than the Statewide median. The operating cost (Fig 50) and management cost (Fig 52) were both slightly below the Statewide median although both are trending upwards and should be kept under review. The economic real rate of return has been around zero for the last 5 years and Council should continue to move to appropriate trade waste and non-residential sewerage fees and charges to achieve full cost recovery and ensure that its sewerage business is sustainable.
APPENDIX B – Example TBL SEWERAGE Performance Report
48
Orange City Council Sewerage (Page 1) Orange City Council TBL Sewerage Performance 2004/05
Compliance with Best-Practice Management Guidelines Criteria
(1) Complete Current Strategic Business Plan & Financial Plan YES
(2) Pricing (full cost-recovery, without significant cross subsidies) YES (2e) Liquid trade waste approvals & policy (By June 2005)(2a) Complying Residential Charges YES (3) Complete performance Reporting Form by 31 October each year(2b) Complying non-Residential Charges YES (6) Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy (by June 2006)(2c) Complying Trade Waste Fees and Charges YES Compliance with All Required Criteria
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Performance IndicatorsLWU Ranking 2 Statewide
1 Population Served: 35,800 (1.01 connected properties per assessment) Result (All LWUs)
2 Number of Assessments : 14,300 14,400
3 Residential Assessments (% of total) 91 3 92
4 New Residential Dwellings Connected to Sewerage (%) 2.4 1 1 1.3
5 Properties Served per km of Main 38 2 42
6 Volume of Sewage Collected (ML) 4,480 3 4,480
7 Renewals Expenditure (% of current replacement cost of system assets) 0.0 3 3 0.0
8 Employees (per 1000 properties) 1.1 1 1 1.5
9 Employees Undergoing 2 or more Days of Training (%)
10 Description of Residential 5 Tariff Structure: Access Charge/property; Independent of Land Value11 Residential Access Charge 2005/06 5 ($/assessment) 273 2 37512 Typical Residential Bill 2005/06 ($/assessment) 273 1 1 37013 Typical Developer Charge 2005/06 ($/equivalent tenement) 3,170 2 2,30014 Average Residential Bill 2004/05 ($/connected property) 260 2 33515 Sewer Usage Charge 2005/06 (c/kL - Non-residential) 12815a Does Council have Liquid Trade Waste Fees and Charges? Yes
16 Urban Properties without Reticulated Sewerage Service (%) 0.1 1 1 0.6
17 Category 1 Public Health Incidents - Minor (per 1000 properties) 0
18 Category 2 Public Health Incidents - Limited Effects (per 1000 properties) 0.0
19 Category 3 Public Health Incidents - Major (per 1000 properties) 0.00
20 Capital Expenditure on Improving Public Health ($/property) 0 3 3 1
21 Odour Complaints (per 1000 properties) 0.0 1 1 1.0
22 Service Complaints (per 1000 properties) 32 4 14
23 Customer Interruption Frequency (per 1000 properties) 1
23a Average Duration of Interruption (hr) 2 3 2
24 Average Customer Outage Time (min) 2
25 Total Days Lost (%) 3.5
26 Volume of Sewage Treated per property (kL/a) 311 5 225
27 Reclaimed Water (% of effluent reclaimed) 78 1 2 9
28 Biosolids Reuse (%) 100 1 1 98
30 Energy Consumption (kWh/ML) 600
32 Renewable Energy Consumption (kWh/property) 0
33 90 Percentile Licence Limits for Effluent Discharge:BOD 20 mg/L; SS 25 mg/L; Total N 15 mg/L; Total P 1 mg/L
34 Compliance with BOD in Licence (%) 100 1 1 100
35 Compliance with SS in Licence (%) 100 1 1 98
36 Sewer Main Chokes and Collapses (per 100 km of main) 112 4 4 49
37 Sewer Overflows to the Environment (per 100 km of main) 13 3 3 11
39 Category 1 Environmental Incidents - Minor (per 1000 properties) 0
40 Category 2 Environmental Incidents - Limited Effects (per 1000 properties) 0.0
41 Category 3 Environmental Incidents - Major (per 1000 properties) 0.00
42 Capital Investment on Improving Environmental Performance ($/property) 0 3 3 40
43 Revenue from Non-residential plus Trade Waste Charges (% of total) 70
44 Revenue from Trade Waste Charges (% of total) 3.3 1 1.3
46 Economic Real Rate of Return (%) 0.2 4 3 1.8
46a Return on Assets (%) 1.3 3 3 2.0
47 Debt to Equity (%) 0.0 4 6.8
48 Interest Cover (%) >5000 1 1 1210
48a Loan Payment ($/property) 0 5 5 39
49 Operating Cost (OMA) per 100 km of Main ($'000/100km) 980 2 3 1100
50 Operating Cost (OMA) per property ($/property) 259 2 2 270
51 Operating Cost (OMA) per kL (c/kL) 83 2 2 117
52 Management Cost ($/property) 89 2 3 97
53 Treatment Cost ($/property) 81 3 3 84
54 Pumping Cost ($/property) 14 1 1 45
55 Energy Cost ($/property) 20 4 4 16
56 Sewer Main Operation & Maintenance Cost ($/property) 42 4 4 31
Ranking for LWUs with (>10,000) connected properties is based on dividing the results for LWUs in this group into 5 equal divisions of 20% :ie. a ranking of 1 indicates the LWU is in the top 20% of LWUs; a ranking of 5 indicates the LWU is in the bottom 20% of LWUs. (Relevant for comparison with LWUs of a similar size).
2 Ranking (1 to 5) for all LWUs is on a percentage of LWUs basis . (Relevant for comparing performance with all other LWUs).3456789
Notes:1
ECO
NO
MIC
UTI
LITY
CH
AR
AC
TER
ISTI
CS
SOC
IAL
ENVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L
Number of Connected Properties:
The area sewered is 2,400 ha, serving Orange and Spring Hill. Council has 2 sewage treatment works providing advance secondary treatment. The system comprises 61,000 EP treatment capacity (comprising one trickling filter/CEAC and activated sludge, and 1 Continuous extended aeration (activated sludge)), 11 pumping stations, 31 km of rising mains, 349 km of reticulation, and 2 river discharges. The total number of sampling days at the treatment works was 34. There were no major malfunctions of the treatment processes. Peak wet weather flow was 800 L/s and average dry weather flow was 120 L/s. The current replacement cost of system assets was $111M ($7,800/assessment), cash and investments were $18.7M, debt was nil and turnover was $8.9M (excluding capital works grants).
YES
YES
YES
Properties)
YES
Ranking 1
(>10,000
Effic
ienc
yH
ealth
Leve
ls o
f Ser
vice
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
e M
anag
emen
tFi
nanc
ial
The Statewide Median is on a percentage of connected properties basis (see Table 2 of the 04/05 NSW Performance Benchmarking Report) as this is the most appropriate for statewide comparisonsAnnual review of the key projections and actions in LWU's Business Plan are required, together with annual updating of LWU's Financial Plan. The business plan should be updated after 3 years.Non-residential: Access Charge based on size of service connection, sewer usage charge - 128c/kL.
Median 3
Updated September 2006
Cha
rges
/Bill
s
Trade waste & non-residential rates & charges provided 5% of the annual rates & charges revenue, including usage.Compliance with Total N in Licence was 53%. Compliance with Total P in Licence was 100%.The operating cost (OMA)/property was $259. The components of operating cost/property were: management ($89), operation ($100), maintenance ($36), energy ($20) and chemical ($15).
(2d) DSP with commercial developer charges
APPENDIX B – Example TBL SEWERAGE Performance Report
49
Orange City Council Sewerage (Page 2) Orange City Council TBL Sewerage Performance (page 2) 2004/05
(Results shown for 10 years together with 2004/05 Statewide Median and Top 20%)
LEGENDNote: Costs are in Jan 2005$. 2004/05 State Median
2004/05 Top 20%
8. Employees
0.0
0.8
1.6
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Emplo
yees
per 1
000 P
rope
rties
4. New Residential Dwellings Connected to Sewerage
0
1
2
3
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
% of
Exis
ting R
eside
ntial
Prop
erite
s
12. Typical Residential Bill
0
100
200
300
400
500
96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Typic
al Re
siden
tial B
ill ($/a
sses
smen
t)
13. Typical Developer Charges
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05
Typic
al De
velop
er C
harg
es ($
/Lot)
46. Economic Real Rate of Return
-2-101234567
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Econ
omic
Real
Rate
of Re
turn (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Comp
lianc
e with
BOD
in Li
cenc
e (%
)
34. Compliance with BOD in Licence 35. Compliance with SS in Licence
0
20
40
60
80
100
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Comp
lianc
e with
SS
in Lic
ence
(%)
0
50
100
150
200
250
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Sewe
r Cho
kes p
er 10
0km
of Ma
in36. Sewer Main Chokes and Collapses
05
101520253035404550
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Sewe
r Ove
rflows
per 1
00km
of M
ain
37. Sewer Overflows to the Environment
21. Odour Complaints
0.0
1.0
2.0
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Odou
r Com
plaint
s per
1000
prop
ertie
s
50. Operating Cost OMA
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Oper
ating
Cos
t ($/pr
oper
ty)
52. Management Cost
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Mana
geme
nt Co
st ($
/prop
erty)
53. Treatment Cost
0102030405060708090
100
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Trea
tmen
t Ope
ratin
g Cos
t ($/pr
oper
ty)
54. Pumping Cost
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Pump
ing O
pera
ting C
ost ($
/prop
erty)
0
20
40
60
25. Total Days Lost
0
1
2
3
95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
Total
Day
s Los
t (%)
App
endi
x C
- 20
04/0
5 B
est-
Prac
tice
Man
agem
ent C
ompl
ianc
e
(1)
Comp
lete C
urre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
ll co
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
su
bsidi
es(Y
es/N
o)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
DSP
with
Comm
ercia
lDe
velop
erCh
arge
s(It
em 2(
e) in
Ta
ble 1)
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Soun
d Wate
r Co
nser
vatio
nim
pleme
nted
(Yes
/No)
(5)
Soun
d Dr
ough
tMa
nage
ment
imple
mente
d(Y
es/N
o)
(6)
Integ
rated
Wate
rCy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
5
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
(1)
Comp
lete
Curre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
llco
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
subs
idies
(Yes
/No)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
Comp
lying
Trad
e Was
te Fe
es &
Ch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2d)
DSP
with
comm
ercia
lde
velop
erch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2e)
Liquid
trad
e wa
ste ap
prov
als
& po
licy
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Integ
rated
Wate
r Cy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
6
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
Sydn
ey W
ater
1,26
2H
unte
r Wat
er12
3
LWU
s with
>10
,000
Pro
pert
ies
1G
osfo
rd47
.6Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es1,
742
2W
yong
53.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3Sh
oalh
aven
46.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,35
0Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es1,
159
4R
ous (
Bul
k Su
pplie
r) (N
O S
GE)
10.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
SG
E5
Mid
Coa
st (C
ombi
ned
- Unf
ilter
ed)
45.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
Yes
6Tw
eed
44.2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7Po
rt M
acqu
arie
-Has
tings
(Unf
ilter
ed)
34.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
807
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
682
8R
iver
ina
(Gro
undw
ater
) (N
O S
GE)
14.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
SG
E9
Wag
ga W
agga
(NO
WS)
10.0
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10C
offs
Har
bour
42.3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
11A
lbur
y C
ity19
.3Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es12
Fish
Riv
er W
S (U
nfilt
ered
, Bul
k Su
pplie
r, N
o Sg
5.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
SG
E13
Tam
wor
th R
egio
nal
23.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
527
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
559
14C
lare
nce
Val
ley
29.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
15Eu
robo
dalla
(Unf
ilter
ed)
25.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
248
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
242
16W
inge
carr
ibee
18.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
es17
Que
anbe
yan
(Ret
icul
ator
)15
.5Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es18
Dub
bo18
.1Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es19
Ora
nge
20.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
20G
oulb
urn
Mul
war
ee11
.0Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es21
Bat
hurs
t Reg
iona
l12
.9Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es22
Lism
ore
(Ret
icul
ator
)12
.6Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es23
Beg
a V
alle
y (U
nfilt
ered
)14
.2Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es24
Bal
lina
(Ret
icul
ator
)11
.9Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es35
025
Kem
psey
(Gro
undw
ater
)15
.2Y
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
es26
Cou
ntry
Ene
rgy
14.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
eY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
ese
Yes
Yes
27B
yron
(Ret
icul
ator
)12
.9Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
28A
Gol
denf
ield
s (R
etic
ulat
or) (
NO
SG
E)6.
1Y
es*
Yes
NO
SG
E28
BG
olde
nfie
lds (
Bul
k) (N
O S
GE)
6.7
Yes
*Y
esN
O S
GE
% o
f LW
Us '
Yes
' (>1
0,00
0 co
nnec
ted
prop
ertie
s)78
%96
%93
%78
%93
%96
%78
%78
%48
%56
%15
%63
%78
%81
%67
%52
%81
%67
%81
%48
%37
%25
%
LWU
s with
3,0
01 -
10,0
00 P
rope
rtie
s29
Arm
idal
e D
umar
esq
7.9
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es30
Grif
fith
12.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
260
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
30A
Haw
kesb
ury
(NO
WS)
3.8
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
Yes
*31
Lith
gow
6.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
32M
id-W
este
rn R
egio
nal
7.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
33R
ichm
ond
Val
ley
7.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
es34
Nam
bucc
a (G
roun
dwat
er)
5.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
35Si
ngle
ton
6.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
36Pa
rkes
7.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
37In
vere
ll5.
0Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es38
Mor
ee P
lain
s (G
roun
dwat
er)
6.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
39C
owra
4.3
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es40
Cen
tral T
able
land
s (N
O S
GE)
3.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
SG
E41
Mus
wel
lbro
ok7.
1Y
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SEW
ERA
GE
OUTC
OMES
FOR
6 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
OUTC
OMES
FOR
4 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
WA
TER
SU
PPLY
WAT
ER S
UPPL
Y&
SEW
ERAG
E TU
RNOV
ER
($M)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(sor
ted
on c
onne
cted
pro
pert
ies)
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
50
App
endi
x C
- 20
04/0
5 B
est-
Prac
tice
Man
agem
ent C
ompl
ianc
e
(1)
Comp
lete C
urre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
ll co
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
su
bsidi
es(Y
es/N
o)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
DSP
with
Comm
ercia
lDe
velop
erCh
arge
s(It
em 2(
e) in
Ta
ble 1)
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Soun
d Wate
r Co
nser
vatio
nim
pleme
nted
(Yes
/No)
(5)
Soun
d Dr
ough
tMa
nage
ment
imple
mente
d(Y
es/N
o)
(6)
Integ
rated
Wate
rCy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
5
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
(1)
Comp
lete
Curre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
llco
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
subs
idies
(Yes
/No)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
Comp
lying
Trad
e Was
te Fe
es &
Ch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2d)
DSP
with
comm
ercia
lde
velop
erch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2e)
Liquid
trad
e wa
ste ap
prov
als
& po
licy
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Integ
rated
Wate
r Cy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
6
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
SEW
ERA
GE
OUTC
OMES
FOR
6 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
OUTC
OMES
FOR
4 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
WA
TER
SU
PPLY
WAT
ER S
UPPL
Y&
SEW
ERAG
E TU
RNOV
ER
($M)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(sor
ted
on c
onne
cted
pro
pert
ies)
42C
orow
a3.
6Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es43
Tum
ut4.
9Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es44
Gun
neda
h (G
roun
dwat
er)
3.2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
45U
pper
Hun
ter
4.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
46N
arra
bri (
Gro
undw
ater
)3.
5Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
es47
Bel
linge
n (U
nfilt
ered
)3.
8Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es48
Leet
on4.
4Y
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
*Y
es49
You
ng (R
etic
ulat
or)
3.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
50C
oom
a-M
onar
o4.
2Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es51
Forb
es3.
8Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es52
Snow
y R
iver
(Unf
ilter
ed)
3.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
53B
errig
an (D
ual S
uppl
y)3.
3Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es54
Den
iliqu
in3.
9Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es55
War
rum
bung
le1.
9Y
esY
esY
esY
es%
of L
WU
s 'Y
es' (
3,00
1 - 1
0,00
0 co
nnec
ted
prop
ertie
s)67
%85
%89
%59
%70
%96
%44
%41
%30
%22
%4%
67%
67%
74%
26%
30%
59%
37%
89%
30%
7%0%
LWU
s with
1,5
01 -
3,00
0 Pr
oper
ties
56Y
ass V
alle
y3.
0Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es57
Wel
lingt
on3.
1Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es58
Coo
tam
undr
a (R
etic
ulat
or)
2.2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
59La
chla
n2.
8Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es60
Gle
n In
nes S
ever
n2.
1Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es61
Live
rpoo
l Pla
ins
1.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
es62
Nar
rom
ine
(Gro
undw
ater
)2.
0Y
esY
esY
es63
Nar
rand
era
(Gro
undw
ater
)2.
5Y
esY
esY
esY
es64
Dun
gog
(Ret
icul
ator
)1.
9Y
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Y
es65
Mur
ray
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
2.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
66C
obar
WB
(Bul
k Su
pplie
r, N
o Sg
e)Y
esN
O S
GE
67C
obar
2.1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
68Te
nter
field
1.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
69Te
mor
a (N
O W
S)0.
4N
O W
SY
es70
Kyo
gle
1.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
71Pa
lera
ng1.
9Y
esY
esY
esY
es*
Yes
72B
land
(NO
WS)
0.8
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
73U
pper
Lac
hlan
1.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
74W
entw
orth
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
2.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
75C
oona
mbl
e (G
roun
dwat
er)
1.2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
76H
arde
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
1.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
% o
f LW
Us '
Yes
' (1,
501
- 3,0
00 c
onne
cted
pro
perti
es)
42%
68%
68%
37%
47%
84%
32%
42%
21%
11%
0%42
%53
%63
%16
%21
%32
%32
%84
%16
%0%
0%
LWU
s with
200
- 1,
500
Prop
ertie
s77
June
e (N
O W
S)0.
5N
O W
SY
esY
es78
Bla
yney
(NO
WS)
1.1
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
79W
alge
tt (D
ual S
uppl
y)1.
8Y
esY
es80
Gre
ater
Hum
e1.
4Y
esY
esY
esY
es*
81G
wyd
ir1.
1Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es82
Glo
uces
ter
2.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
83O
bero
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
1.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
84G
ilgan
dra
(Gro
undw
ater
)1.
1Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
51
App
endi
x C
- 20
04/0
5 B
est-
Prac
tice
Man
agem
ent C
ompl
ianc
e
(1)
Comp
lete C
urre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
ll co
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
su
bsidi
es(Y
es/N
o)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
DSP
with
Comm
ercia
lDe
velop
erCh
arge
s(It
em 2(
e) in
Ta
ble 1)
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Soun
d Wate
r Co
nser
vatio
nim
pleme
nted
(Yes
/No)
(5)
Soun
d Dr
ough
tMa
nage
ment
imple
mente
d(Y
es/N
o)
(6)
Integ
rated
Wate
rCy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
5
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
(1)
Comp
lete
Curre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
llco
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
subs
idies
(Yes
/No)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
Comp
lying
Trad
e Was
te Fe
es &
Ch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2d)
DSP
with
comm
ercia
lde
velop
erch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2e)
Liquid
trad
e wa
ste ap
prov
als
& po
licy
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Integ
rated
Wate
r Cy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
6
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
SEW
ERA
GE
OUTC
OMES
FOR
6 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
OUTC
OMES
FOR
4 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
WA
TER
SU
PPLY
WAT
ER S
UPPL
Y&
SEW
ERAG
E TU
RNOV
ER
($M)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(sor
ted
on c
onne
cted
pro
pert
ies)
85U
ralla
1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
86H
ay (D
ual S
uppl
y)1.
1Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
ese
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
eY
esY
es87
Bou
rke
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
1.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
88W
akoo
l (D
ual S
uppl
y)1.
7Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es89
Bog
an1.
3Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es90
Guy
ra1.
2Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es91
Cab
onne
2.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
92C
arra
thoo
l (G
roun
dwat
er)
1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
93Tu
mba
rum
ba1.
2Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
ese
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
eY
esY
esY
es94
Gun
daga
i0.
7Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es95
Wed
din
(NO
WS)
0.3
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
96W
arre
n (D
ual S
uppl
y)1.
0Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es97
Bom
bala
0.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
98W
alch
a0.
7Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es99
Coo
lam
on (N
O W
S)0.
7N
O W
SY
esY
esY
esY
es10
0B
alra
nald
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
0.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
101
Mur
rum
bidg
ee (G
roun
dwat
er)
0.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
102
Lock
hart
(NO
WS)
0.3
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
103
Cen
tral D
arlin
g (D
ual S
uppl
y)0.
7Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es10
4B
ooro
wa
0.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
eY
esY
esY
esY
es10
5B
rew
arrin
a0.
8Y
esY
esY
es10
6Je
rilde
rie (D
ual S
uppl
y)0.
5Y
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es10
7U
rana
(NO
WS)
0.2
NO
WS
Yes
Yes
*Y
es%
of L
WU
s 'Y
es' (
200
- 1,5
00 c
onne
cted
pro
perti
es)
40%
72%
80%
56%
40%
88%
36%
40%
12%
8%0%
35%
48%
65%
32%
16%
29%
19%
68%
10%
3%0%
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
52
App
endi
x C
- 20
04/0
5 B
est-
Prac
tice
Man
agem
ent C
ompl
ianc
e
(1)
Comp
lete C
urre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
ll co
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
su
bsidi
es(Y
es/N
o)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
DSP
with
Comm
ercia
lDe
velop
erCh
arge
s(It
em 2(
e) in
Ta
ble 1)
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Soun
d Wate
r Co
nser
vatio
nim
pleme
nted
(Yes
/No)
(5)
Soun
d Dr
ough
tMa
nage
ment
imple
mente
d(Y
es/N
o)
(6)
Integ
rated
Wate
rCy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
5
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
(1)
Comp
lete
Curre
nt SB
P &
FP(Y
es/N
o)
(2)
Prici
ng w
ith fu
llco
st-re
cove
ry,wi
thout
signif
icant
cross
subs
idies
(Yes
/No)
(2a)
Com
plying
Re
siden
tial
Char
ges
(Yes
/No)
(2b)
Comp
lying
non-
Resid
entia
lCh
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2c)
Comp
lying
Trad
e Was
te Fe
es &
Ch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2d)
DSP
with
comm
ercia
lde
velop
erch
arge
s(Y
es/N
o)
(2e)
Liquid
trad
e wa
ste ap
prov
als
& po
licy
(Yes
/No)
(3)
Comp
lete
perfo
rman
ceRe
portin
g For
m by
15
Septe
mber
each
year
(Yes
/No)
(4)
Integ
rated
Wate
r Cy
cleMa
nage
ment
Stra
tegy
Comm
ence
d(Y
es/N
o)
Comp
lianc
ewi
th re
quire
d Cr
iteria
6
(Yes
/No)
Prop
osed
Divid
end f
rom
Surp
lus$'0
00
SEW
ERA
GE
OUTC
OMES
FOR
6 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
OUTC
OMES
FOR
4 B
PM C
RITE
RIA
WA
TER
SU
PPLY
WAT
ER S
UPPL
Y&
SEW
ERAG
E TU
RNOV
ER
($M)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(sor
ted
on c
onne
cted
pro
pert
ies)
WS
LW
Us
with
>$5
M tu
rnov
er28
WS
LW
Us
with
<$5
M tu
rnov
er70
SG
E L
WU
s w
ith >
$5M
turn
over
25S
GE
LW
Us
with
<$5
M tu
rnov
er76
2227
2722
2627
2222
1316
519
2324
1814
2320
2414
106
79%
96%
96%
79%
93%
96%
79%
79%
46%
57%
18%
76%
92%
96%
72%
56%
92%
80%
96%
56%
40%
24%
3553
5535
3763
2628
1510
039
4657
2219
3322
6415
40
50%
76%
79%
50%
53%
90%
37%
40%
21%
14%
0%51
%61
%75
%29
%25
%43
%29
%84
%20
%5%
0%
5780
8257
6390
4850
2826
558
6981
4033
5642
8829
146
% a
ll LW
Us
58%
82%
84%
58%
64%
92%
49%
51%
29%
27%
5%57
%68
%80
%40
%33
%55
%42
%87
%29
%14
%6%
Not
es:
1 2Fo
r LW
Us
with
wat
er s
uppl
y on
ly o
r sew
erag
e on
ly, t
he re
leva
nt tu
rnov
er is
$5M
.3
The
turn
over
for L
WU
s re
spon
sibl
e fo
r wat
er s
uppl
y or
sew
erag
e on
ly is
sho
wn
left
just
ified
abo
ve.
4W
here
an
LWU
has
not
yet
repo
rted
its tu
rnov
er fo
r 200
4/05
, the
turn
over
repo
rted
for 2
003/
04 is
sho
wn
in it
alic
s bo
ld a
bove
.5
The
requ
ired
crite
ria fo
r wat
er s
uppl
y in
200
4/05
are
(1),
(2),
(2a)
, (2b
), (2
c), (
3), (
4) a
nd (5
).6
The
requ
ired
crite
ria fo
r sew
erag
e in
200
4/05
are
(1),
(2),
(2a)
, (2b
), (2
c), (
2d),
(2e)
and
(3).
7Y
es+ in
col
umn
(1) i
ndic
ates
that
the
LWU
's s
trate
gic
busi
ness
pla
n an
d fin
anci
al p
lan
need
to b
e up
date
8Y
es*
in c
olum
n 2c
for w
ater
sup
ply
or c
olum
n 2d
for s
ewer
age
indi
cate
s th
at th
e LW
U h
as c
omm
erci
al d
evel
oper
cha
rges
in p
lace
but
is y
et to
com
plet
e its
com
plyi
ng D
evel
opm
ent S
ervi
cing
Pla
n (D
SP
).Y
ese in
thes
e co
lum
ns in
dica
tes
the
LWU
is e
xem
pt fr
om th
e re
quire
men
t to
prep
are
a D
SP
due
to lo
w g
row
th(u
nder
5 lo
ts/
The
repo
rted
com
plia
nces
for e
ach
LWU
are
on
the
basi
s of
Not
es 2
or 3
of t
he S
peci
al P
urpo
se F
inan
cial
Rep
orts
of i
ts 2
004/
05 A
nnua
l Fin
anci
al S
tate
men
ts, s
uppl
emen
ted
by o
ther
dat
a pr
ovid
ed to
DE
US
by
the
LWU
.
% o
f Sm
all L
WU
s (7
0 W
S LW
Us a
nd 7
6 SG
E LW
Us)
TO
TA
L 'Y
ES'
for
all L
WU
s
TOTA
L 'Y
ES' f
or la
rge
LWU
s (>$
10M
turn
over
)2
% o
f Lar
ge L
WU
s (2
8 W
S LW
Us a
nd 2
5 SG
E LW
Us)
TOTA
L 'Y
ES' f
or re
mai
nder
of L
WU
s (<$
10M
turn
over
)2
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
53
App
endi
x D
- 20
04/0
5 N
SW W
ater
Util
ity P
erfo
rman
ce S
umm
ary
Che
mic
al11
(%)
Mic
robi
olog
ical
:E
. col
i12
(%)
BO
D13
(%)
SS14
(%)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(13a
)(1
4)(1
5)(1
6)(1
7)(1
8)(1
9)(2
0)(2
1)
Sydn
ey W
ater
1,68
5,00
052
5,00
021
158
7Y
es P
100
100
675
P
1,26
267
65,
700
3.8
429
Y
esH
unte
r Wat
er21
1,20
069
,900
197
60.4
Yes
P
100
100
62.7
P
123
609
4,40
03.
231
715
72,
463
Yes
LWU
s with
> 1
0,00
0 Pr
oper
ties
1G
osfo
rd67
,700
15,2
0018
020
.2Y
es P
100
100
27.4
P
100
100
47.6
612
4,10
0-0
.70
516
273
738
Yes
2W
yong
59,2
0014
,200
178
29.0
Yes
P
100
100
24.8
P
100
100
53.8
625
4,50
01.
18
460
166
676
Yes
Yes
3Sh
oalh
aven
47,6
0015
,900
167
18.9
Yes
P
9910
027
.6 P
100
9546
.572
74,
450
4.0
653
924
853
2Y
esY
es
4R
ous (
Bul
k Su
pplie
r) (N
O S
GE)
37,3
0011
,700
10.0
P
100
100
NO
SG
E10
.03,
280
0.2
517
781
129
Yes
5M
idC
oast
(Com
bine
d - U
nfilt
ered
)36
,400
10,4
0020
419
.5Y
es P
9510
026
.1 P
9896
45.6
950
7,70
04.
725
599
115
470
Yes
Yes
6Tw
eed
30,9
009,
980
221
18.9
Yes
P
9410
025
.3 P
9487
44.2
716
7,82
05.
31
553
232
418
Yes
Yes
7Po
rt M
acqu
arie
-Has
tings
(Unf
ilter
ed)
28,5
007,
320
186
19.1
Yes
P
100
100
15.7
P
7790
34.8
754
10,2
002.
12
628
180
401
Yes
Yes
8R
iver
ina
(Gro
undw
ater
) (N
O S
GE)
27,7
0016
,000
343
14.6
Yes
P
9810
0N
O S
GE
14.6
320
2,30
02.
34
237
6520
7Y
esY
es
10C
offs
Har
bour
24,0
006,
010
186
18.2
Yes
P
100
100
24.1
P
100
9842
.310
2410
,900
6.8
1956
621
838
3Y
esY
es
11A
lbur
y21
,300
14,4
0028
49.
0Y
es P
8510
010
.3 P
8294
19.3
583
10,0
000.
26
478
193
455
Yes
Yes
15
12Fi
sh R
iver
WS
(Unf
ilter
ed, B
ulk
Supp
lier)
23,0
0016
,300
5.8
No
P
100
100
NO
SG
E5.
81.
014
7710
0Y
es
13Ta
mw
orth
Reg
iona
l19
,530
10,7
0031
711
.6Y
es P
9897
12.1
P
9992
23.7
874
4,99
03.
35
544
200
342
Yes
Yes
14C
lare
nce
Val
ley
20,4
0016
,500
178
20.2
Yes
P
9110
09.
2 P
9571
29.4
716
12,1
00Y
es
15Eu
robo
dalla
(Unf
ilter
ed)
19,7
304,
820
151
11.9
Yes
P
9810
014
.0 P
9810
025
.988
416
,800
4.1
568
226
228
5Y
esY
es
16W
inge
carr
ibee
19,2
105,
110
220
9.6
Yes
P
100
100
9.3
P
9998
18.9
818
7,31
02.
79
459
215
250
Yes
Yes
17Q
uean
beya
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
16,4
304,
010
185
8.2
Yes
P
100
100
7.3
P
100
100
15.5
722
7,81
00.
40
406
127
288
Yes
Yes
18D
ubbo
13,8
009,
580
462
9.3
Yes
P
100
100
8.8
P
9292
18.1
919
5,28
02.
54
738
263
218
Yes
Yes
19O
rang
e15
,010
4,76
022
111
.8Y
es P
100
100
8.9
P
100
100
20.7
687
9,04
01.
90
584
203
210
Yes
20G
oulb
urn
Mul
war
ee13
,950
2,34
093
5.2
Yes
P
9610
05.
8 P
100
100
11.0
792
7,96
02.
721
410
178
81Y
esY
es*
21B
athu
rst R
egio
nal
12,8
707,
960
283
7.5
No
P
100
100
5.4
P
100
9012
.971
94,
210
-0.6
166
528
423
4Y
es*
22Li
smor
e (R
etic
ulat
or)
12,9
103,
850
179
5.4
Yes
P
9810
07.
2 P
100
100
12.6
569
6,50
02.
81
581
135
137
Yes
Yes
23B
ega
Val
ley
(Unf
ilter
ed)
13,2
303,
540
178
6.8
Yes
P
9910
07.
4 P
9999
14.2
861
9,70
00.
90
791
364
199
Yes
Yes
24B
allin
a (R
etic
ulat
or)
13,1
804,
470
220
4.8
Yes
P
100
100
7.1
P
100
100
11.9
636
10,4
00-1
.70
743
207
138
Yes
25K
emps
ey (G
roun
dwat
er)
11,4
704,
170
187
9.4
Yes
P
9810
05.
8 P
9996
15.2
924
13,8
004.
412
565
190
192
Yes
Yes
26C
ount
ry E
nerg
y10
,390
7,23
028
112
.2Y
es P
100
100
2.4
P
100
100
14.6
652
-0.3
084
321
695
Yes
27B
yron
(Ret
icul
ator
)10
,610
3,02
021
44.
6Y
es P
100
100
8.3
P
100
9912
.981
015
,700
0.0
992
827
115
8Y
es
28A
Gol
denf
ield
s (R
etic
ulat
or) (
NO
SG
E)10
,200
3,89
031
18.
7Y
es P
9510
0N
O S
GE
8.7
534
2,00
02.
858
990
122
Yes
Yes
28B
Gol
denf
ield
s (B
ulk
Supp
lier)
(NO
SG
E)18
,800
9,42
08.
7Y
es P
9510
0N
O S
GE
8.7
2,00
0-1
.920
440
168
Yes
576,
000
205,
360
185
339.
030
0.3
639
688
6,43
019
77,
625
LWU
s with
3,0
01 -
10,0
00 P
rope
rtie
s
29A
rmid
ale
Dum
ares
q8,
160
3,16
025
34.
4Y
es P
100
100
3.5
P
100
100
7.9
686
4,86
0-0
.43
659
326
165
Yes
30G
riffit
h8,
650
9,42
068
57.
4Y
es P
100
100
5.0
P
5445
12.4
820
4,62
03.
11
890
265
85Y
esY
es
31Li
thgo
w7,
380
2,14
018
13.
8Y
es P
100
100
2.9
P
6.7
734
4,02
0-0
.55
601
316
75Y
es
32M
id-W
este
rn R
egio
nal
6,39
02,
420
286
4.6
Yes
P
8410
03.
2 P
100
927.
893
54,
650
2.8
1169
428
611
1Y
esY
es
33R
ichm
ond
Val
ley
6,72
03,
040
286
3.6
Yes
P
100
100
3.4
P
100
877.
010
947,
290
2.2
070
232
180
Yes
Yes
34N
ambu
cca
(Gro
undw
ater
)6,
290
1,91
020
52.
5Y
es P
100
100
3.4
P
9096
5.9
630
7,42
03.
45
445
166
79Y
esY
es
35Si
ngle
ton
6,06
02,
750
309
4.5
Yes
P
100
100
2.4
P
100
100
6.9
768
4,06
03.
50
494
164
86Y
esY
es
36Pa
rkes
5,94
06,
520
362
5.9
Yes
P
100
100
1.6
P
6642
7.5
742
9,21
02.
00
610
102
103
Yes
Yes
37In
vere
ll5,
170
2,10
022
73.
4Y
es P
100
100
1.6
P
100
875.
078
25,
420
1.3
559
720
076
Yes
Yes
38M
oree
Pla
ins (
Gro
undw
ater
)5,
160
3,22
042
03.
1Y
es P
100
842.
9 P
5892
6.0
1164
6,27
02.
511
662
261
43Y
esY
es
39C
owra
5,25
02,
180
240
2.9
Yes
P
100
951.
4 P
100
754.
383
65,
150
-0.3
370
545
043
Yes
*
40C
entra
l Tab
lela
nds (
NO
SG
E)5,
220
2,09
023
63.
6Y
es P
100
100
NO
SG
E3.
639
84,
430
1.2
2037
417
872
Yes
Yes
41M
usw
ellb
rook
5,07
02,
870
314
4.3
Yes
P
9510
02.
8 P
100
100
7.1
984
8,05
06.
011
667
127
62Y
esY
es
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
Tota
ls o
r Med
ians
(% o
f con
nect
ed p
rope
rtie
s ba
sis)
for >
10,0
00 P
rope
rtie
s
OM
A c
ost
($/c
onne
cted
prop
erty
)
Man
agem
ent
Cos
t
($/c
onne
cted
prop
erty
)
Wat
er S
uppl
y - 2
004/
05 u
nles
s not
edSe
wer
age
- 200
4/05
unl
ess n
oted
Wat
er S
uppl
y an
d Se
wer
age
- 20
04/0
5 un
less
not
edSu
pply
Ass
essm
ents
(No.
)5
Stra
tegi
cB
usin
ess
Plan
sPr
epar
ed?15
Pay-
for-
Use
Wat
er
Pric
ing
&
Full
Cos
t R
ecov
ery?
Cur
rent
Rep
lace
men
tC
ost o
f Sy
stem
Ass
ets
($M
)
2005
/06
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
erC
harg
e($
/ET)
Eco
nom
icR
eal R
ate
of R
etur
n
(%)
Deb
t to
Equ
ity
(%)
Ave
rage
Ann
ual
Res
iden
tial
Wat
erC
onsu
mpt
ion
(Pot
able
)(k
L/co
nnec
ted
prop
erty
)
Tur
nove
r
($M
)8
2005
/06
Tar
iffPa
y-fo
r-U
se ?
9
2005
/06
Res
iden
tial
Tar
iffIn
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?
DE
C L
icen
ce
Com
plia
nce
Tur
nove
r
($M
)2,8
Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
ompl
ianc
e(1
996
NH
MR
C/A
RM
CA
NZ
Gui
delin
es)
Tot
alT
urno
ver
($M
)
2005
/06
Res
iden
tial
Tar
iffIn
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?10
2005
/06
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial
Bill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
Tot
al W
ater
Su
pplie
d
Pota
ble
+ N
on-p
otab
le
(ML)
2
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
54
App
endi
x D
- 20
04/0
5 N
SW W
ater
Util
ity P
erfo
rman
ce S
umm
ary
Che
mic
al11
(%)
Mic
robi
olog
ical
:E
. col
i12
(%)
BO
D13
(%)
SS14
(%)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(13a
)(1
4)(1
5)(1
6)(1
7)(1
8)(1
9)(2
0)(2
1)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
OM
A c
ost
($/c
onne
cted
prop
erty
)
Man
agem
ent
Cos
t
($/c
onne
cted
prop
erty
)
Wat
er S
uppl
y - 2
004/
05 u
nles
s not
edSe
wer
age
- 200
4/05
unl
ess n
oted
Wat
er S
uppl
y an
d Se
wer
age
- 20
04/0
5 un
less
not
edSu
pply
Ass
essm
ents
(No.
)5
Stra
tegi
cB
usin
ess
Plan
sPr
epar
ed?15
Pay-
for-
Use
Wat
er
Pric
ing
&
Full
Cos
t R
ecov
ery?
Cur
rent
Rep
lace
men
tC
ost o
f Sy
stem
Ass
ets
($M
)
2005
/06
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
erC
harg
e($
/ET)
Eco
nom
icR
eal R
ate
of R
etur
n
(%)
Deb
t to
Equ
ity
(%)
Ave
rage
Ann
ual
Res
iden
tial
Wat
erC
onsu
mpt
ion
(Pot
able
)(k
L/co
nnec
ted
prop
erty
)
Tur
nove
r
($M
)8
2005
/06
Tar
iffPa
y-fo
r-U
se ?
9
2005
/06
Res
iden
tial
Tar
iffIn
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?
DE
C L
icen
ce
Com
plia
nce
Tur
nove
r
($M
)2,8
Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
ompl
ianc
e(1
996
NH
MR
C/A
RM
CA
NZ
Gui
delin
es)
Tot
alT
urno
ver
($M
)
2005
/06
Res
iden
tial
Tar
iffIn
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?10
2005
/06
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial
Bill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
Tot
al W
ater
Su
pplie
d
Pota
ble
+ N
on-p
otab
le
(ML)
2
42C
orow
a4,
740
3,26
058
71.
8Y
es P
100
100
1.8
P
3.6
709
1,71
0-0
.11
498
190
60Y
es
43Tu
mut
4,53
02,
050
301
2.5
Yes
P
9810
02.
4 P
8898
4.9
785
7,58
02.
41
528
132
76Y
esY
es
44G
unne
dah
(Gro
undw
ater
)4,
170
2,85
036
72.
1Y
es P
100
771.
1 P
100
783.
253
55,
340
1.4
133
678
46Y
esY
es
45U
pper
Hun
ter
4,56
02,
790
239
2.7
Yes
P
100
100
1.8
P
100
894.
577
44,
410
3.6
060
124
349
Yes
Yes
46N
arra
bri (
Gro
undw
ater
)4,
250
3,74
056
22.
1Y
es P
100
100
1.4
P
3.5
700
4,08
01.
17
448
109
65Y
esY
es*
47B
ellin
gen
(Unf
ilter
ed)
4,15
01,
390
223
2.1
Yes
P
100
100
1.7
P
9291
3.8
810
10,1
00-0
.10
572
274
60Y
es
48Le
eton
4,26
03,
130
524
2.5
Yes
P
100
100
1.9
O
100
100
4.4
628
5,80
02.
21
721
227
52
49Y
oung
(Ret
icul
ator
)3,
770
1,63
024
72.
4Y
es P
100
100
1.5
P
100
923.
987
93,
000
10.2
447
655
13Y
esY
es
50C
oom
a-M
onar
o3,
690
1,70
034
42.
3Y
es P
100
100
1.9
P
4.2
1058
4,25
02.
25
711
252
41Y
esY
es
51Fo
rbes
3,53
02,
350
377
2.1
Yes
P
100
911.
7O
3192
3.8
904
1,32
03.
213
493
8433
Yes
52Sn
owy
Riv
er (U
nfilt
ered
)2,
370
2,26
054
21.
4Y
es P
9910
01.
6 P
8477
3.0
1110
5,00
042
Yes
53B
errig
an (D
ual S
uppl
y)3,
310
2,21
024
72.
1N
o P
100
100
1.2
P
100
100
3.3
826
5,90
01.
43
548
184
48Y
es
129,
000
73,1
8028
679
.954
.113
4.0
796
5,16
220
01,
665
LWU
s with
1,5
01 -
3,00
0 Pr
oper
ties
54D
enili
quin
3,16
02,
960
597
2.3
Yes
P
100
100
1.6
P
8510
03.
911
071,
050
3.5
261
425
130
Yes
Yes
55W
arru
mbu
ngle
3,06
01,
250
368
1.1
No
P
9991
0.8
P
1.9
761
1,69
0-2
.10
520
243
49Y
es
56Y
ass V
alle
y2,
950
840
195
1.6
Yes
P
100
961.
4 P
100
100
3.0
896
12,7
003.
60
601
198
45Y
esY
es
57W
ellin
gton
2,88
01,
020
256
1.8
Yes
P
100
100
1.3
P
100
503.
110
293,
390
3.0
1461
121
241
Yes
Yes
58C
oota
mun
dra
(Ret
icul
ator
)2,
830
900
239
1.3
Yes
P
9910
00.
9O
100
852.
262
32,
700
-1.6
449
510
011
Yes
59La
chla
n2,
640
1,43
038
21.
7Y
es P
100
100
1.1
P
100
602.
883
2-0
.90
712
167
50Y
es
60G
len
Inne
s Sev
ern
2,97
074
018
71.
2Y
es P
100
100
0.9
P
100
100
2.1
681
4,45
039
Yes
61Li
verp
ool P
lain
s2,
260
950
280
1.0
Yes
P
100
100
0.7
P
9237
1.6
560
4,00
0-1
.13
488
129
40
62N
arro
min
e (G
roun
dwat
er)
2,13
01,
540
656
1.0
Yes
P
100
1.0
P
2.0
1042
1,44
0-0
.30
628
218
26Y
es
63N
arra
nder
a (G
roun
dwat
er)
2,18
01,
440
445
1.4
Yes
P
8710
01.
1O
100
332.
585
66.
90
581
225
22Y
es*
64D
ungo
g (R
etic
ulat
or)
2,10
068
017
51.
2Y
es P
100
100
0.7
P
1.9
688
5,65
05.
35
637
188
19Y
esY
es
65M
urra
y (D
ual S
uppl
y)2,
030
1,28
022
21.
4Y
es P
100
1.1
P
2.5
738
1,40
04.
723
571
212
17Y
esY
es
67C
obar
2,02
01,
660
485
1.6
Yes
P
100
100
0.5
P
100
100
2.1
825
2,18
00.
10
562
124
30Y
es
66C
obar
WB
(Bul
k Su
pplie
r)2,
020
4,25
010
0N
O S
GE
Yes
*
68Te
nter
field
2,00
052
016
30.
9Y
es P
100
940.
8 P
9543
1.7
743
3,00
0-4
.30
835
403
31Y
es
70K
yogl
e1,
890
470
135
0.9
Yes
P
9092
0.8
P
6637
1.6
806
2,00
0-0
.30
540
201
27Y
es
71Pa
lera
ng1,
880
540
180
1.0
Yes
P
100
100
0.9
P
9587
1.9
1018
6,09
018
Yes
73U
pper
Lac
hlan
1,72
033
014
81.
0Y
es P
8595
0.7
P
100
100
1.7
1037
3,10
01.
013
656
186
24Y
esY
es
74W
entw
orth
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
1,80
02,
580
104
1.7
Yes
P
100
950.
7 P
100
100
2.4
1046
5,58
00.
110
766
161
35Y
esY
es
76H
arde
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
1,57
079
041
81.
2N
o P
100
100
0.3
P
9090
1.6
956
-4.5
086
211
819
Yes
*
75C
oona
mbl
e (G
roun
dwat
er)
1,55
01,
630
621
0.7
No
P
5010
00.
5 P
9241
1.2
595
-1.5
131
840
21Y
es
46,0
0023
,550
239
26.0
17.7
43.7
713
3,36
018
759
3
LWU
s with
200
- 1,
500
Prop
ertie
s
79W
alge
tt (D
ual S
uppl
y)1,
680
2,30
052
31.
3N
o P
8695
0.6
P
1.8
855
-2.5
278
020
927
80G
reat
er H
ume
1,50
062
031
80.
7N
oO
100
100
0.8
O
100
100
1.4
670
6,80
00.
32
509
143
21Y
es
81G
wyd
ir1,
450
930
333
0.8
Yes
P
8983
0.4
P
9446
1.1
1088
26Y
es
82G
louc
este
r1,
440
450
185
1.5
Yes
P
100
961.
4 P
100
852.
976
811
,300
12.0
092
512
821
Yes
Yes
83O
bero
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
1,34
069
016
71.
0Y
es P
100
100
0.6
P
9250
1.6
510
2,41
01.
57
541
100
10Y
esY
es*
84G
ilgan
dra
(Gro
undw
ater
)1,
370
1,05
046
00.
7Y
es P
100
100
0.4
P
100
100
1.1
825
1.0
045
612
123
Yes
Yes
Tota
ls o
r Med
ians
(% o
f con
nect
ed p
rope
rtie
s ba
sis)
for 1
,501
- 3,
000
Prop
ertie
s
Tota
ls o
r Med
ians
(% o
f con
nect
ed p
rope
rtie
s ba
sis)
for 3
,001
- 10
,000
Pro
pert
ies
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
55
App
endi
x D
- 20
04/0
5 N
SW W
ater
Util
ity P
erfo
rman
ce S
umm
ary
Che
mic
al11
(%)
Mic
robi
olog
ical
:E
. col
i12
(%)
BO
D13
(%)
SS14
(%)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(13a
)(1
4)(1
5)(1
6)(1
7)(1
8)(1
9)(2
0)(2
1)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
OM
A c
ost
($/c
onne
cted
prop
erty
)
Man
agem
ent
Cos
t
($/c
onne
cted
prop
erty
)
Wat
er S
uppl
y - 2
004/
05 u
nles
s not
edSe
wer
age
- 200
4/05
unl
ess n
oted
Wat
er S
uppl
y an
d Se
wer
age
- 20
04/0
5 un
less
not
edSu
pply
Ass
essm
ents
(No.
)5
Stra
tegi
cB
usin
ess
Plan
sPr
epar
ed?15
Pay-
for-
Use
Wat
er
Pric
ing
&
Full
Cos
t R
ecov
ery?
Cur
rent
Rep
lace
men
tC
ost o
f Sy
stem
Ass
ets
($M
)
2005
/06
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
erC
harg
e($
/ET)
Eco
nom
icR
eal R
ate
of R
etur
n
(%)
Deb
t to
Equ
ity
(%)
Ave
rage
Ann
ual
Res
iden
tial
Wat
erC
onsu
mpt
ion
(Pot
able
)(k
L/co
nnec
ted
prop
erty
)
Tur
nove
r
($M
)8
2005
/06
Tar
iffPa
y-fo
r-U
se ?
9
2005
/06
Res
iden
tial
Tar
iffIn
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?
DE
C L
icen
ce
Com
plia
nce
Tur
nove
r
($M
)2,8
Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
ompl
ianc
e(1
996
NH
MR
C/A
RM
CA
NZ
Gui
delin
es)
Tot
alT
urno
ver
($M
)
2005
/06
Res
iden
tial
Tar
iffIn
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?10
2005
/06
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial
Bill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
Tot
al W
ater
Su
pplie
d
Pota
ble
+ N
on-p
otab
le
(ML)
2
85U
ralla
1,30
033
019
60.
6Y
es P
100
940.
5 P
100
100
1.0
737
700
0.0
156
520
815
86H
ay (D
ual S
uppl
y)1,
320
1,66
014
00.
6Y
es P
100
100
0.5
P
100
901.
174
7-1
.90
601
164
15Y
es
87B
ourk
e (D
ual S
uppl
y)1,
700
3,53
050
00.
9Y
es P
100
880.
6 P
428
1.4
1175
860
-4.0
1276
420
721
Yes
88W
akoo
l (D
ual S
uppl
y)1,
330
860
589
1.1
Yes
P
100
100
0.6
P
1.7
1498
2.0
1271
417
026
Yes
Yes
89B
ogan
1,19
086
047
60.
9Y
es P
100
0.5
P
1.3
907
-0.9
275
638
123
90G
uyra
1,19
057
031
90.
7Y
es P
100
900.
5 P
100
831.
210
381.
110
587
173
22Y
esY
es
91C
abon
ne1,
130
330
176
0.9
Yes
P
100
100
1.7
P
100
100
2.6
850
4.9
551
516
037
Yes
Yes
92C
arra
thoo
l (G
roun
dwat
er)
1,13
02,
060
493
0.9
Yes
P
100
100
0.1
P
1.0
891
1,47
00.
22
631
125
17Y
esY
es*
93Tu
mba
rum
ba1,
080
460
364
0.6
Yes
P
100
970.
6 P
1.2
882
840
2.7
250
615
719
Yes
Yes
94G
unda
gai
1,00
049
025
70.
5Y
es P
100
100
0.2
P
0.7
447
0.0
057
311
95
96W
arre
n (D
ual S
uppl
y)1,
060
810
170
0.5
Yes
P
100
940.
5 P
100
1.0
847
-1.3
259
312
116
Yes
97B
omba
la90
041
048
10.
4Y
es P
100
100
0.4
P
100
100
0.8
1043
2,99
04.
05
459
171
12Y
esY
es*
98W
alch
a81
023
016
70.
4Y
es P
100
100
0.2
P
9258
0.7
747
-1.0
060
517
016
Yes
100
Bal
rana
ld (D
ual S
uppl
y)84
01,
130
150
0.5
Yes
P
100
100
0.3
P
0.8
866
1,59
00.
612
503
9519
Yes
Yes
101
Mur
rum
bidg
ee (G
roun
dwat
er)
770
710
570
0.3
Yes
P
100
0.3
O
917
0.6
640
2,00
02.
20
348
152
8Y
es
103
Cen
tral D
arlin
g (D
ual S
uppl
y)72
058
013
10.
6Y
es P
9610
00.
1 P
0.7
1079
-2.8
089
617
Yes
*
104
Boo
row
a61
021
021
50.
5Y
es P
100
100
0.1
P
0.6
783
900
2.7
753
187
9Y
es
105
Bre
war
rina
550
1,20
052
50.
5N
oO
100
100
0.3
O
0.8
1147
3.7
111
2685
14
106
Jeril
derie
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
490
270
217
0.3
Yes
P
100
950.
3 P
100
750.
512
252,
930
3.0
180
816
95
Yes
Yes
*
77,0
0048
,710
215
45.4
31.0
76.4
746
1,86
315
544
2
LWU
s with
out W
ater
Sup
ply
9W
agga
Wag
ga (N
O W
S)N
O W
S24
,400
10.0
P
9893
10.0
309
1,45
09.
00
145
2816
6Y
es
30A
Haw
kesb
ury
NO
WS
7,51
03.
8 P
3.8
384
5,59
0-1
.40
379
165
57
69Te
mor
aN
O W
S1,
890
0.4
P
100
900.
418
715
0-1
.10
171
299
Yes
72B
land
NO
WS
1,81
00.
8O
9295
0.8
392
1,00
01.
00
256
668
Yes
77Ju
nee
NO
WS
1,57
00.
5 P
100
100
0.5
293
550
1.3
023
056
7Y
es
78B
layn
eyN
O W
S1,
430
1.1
P
100
100
1.1
440
2,00
03.
313
302
136
10Y
es
95W
eddi
nN
O W
S1,
060
0.3
P
0.3
162
4.2
013
726
7Y
es
99C
oola
mon
NO
WS
850
0.7
P
0.7
240
11.3
017
862
4
102
Lock
hart
NO
WS
810
0.3
P
100
100
0.3
337
1,00
0-0
.20
186
8611
Yes
107
Ura
naN
O W
S31
00.
2 P
0.2
195
4,10
00.
314
276
111
4Y
es
42,0
0018
.318
.328
3
57/9
581
Yes
Stat
ewid
e To
tals
6Y
es12
Yes
*
(not
e 6)
(not
e 7)
(not
e 6)
(not
e 9)
(not
e 9)
(not
e 11
)(n
ote
12)
(not
e 6)
(not
e 9)
(not
e13
)(n
ote
14)
(not
e 6)
(not
e 7)
(not
e 7)
(not
e 7)
(not
e7)
(not
e 7)
(not
e 7)
(not
e 10
)93
/107
(not
e 15
)
Tota
ls o
r Med
ians
(% o
f con
nect
ed p
rope
rtie
s ba
sis)
for 2
00 -
1,50
0 Pr
oper
ties
Tota
ls o
r Med
ians
(% o
f con
nect
ed p
rope
rtie
s ba
sis)
for L
WU
s with
out W
S
87 /
95
Yes
93 /
95 Y
es$3
96M
44/1
01C
ompl
ied
100%
790,
000
$462
MM
edia
n20
0kL/
conn
ecte
dpr
oper
ty33
5,00
0 M
L
Med
ian
2.2%
( 74/
98
+ve)
Med
ian
4%
Med
ian
$530
/co
nnec
ted
prop
erty
$11,
100M
Med
ian
$200
/ co
nnec
ted
prop
erty
Med
ian
$700
pe
ras
sess
men
t
Med
ian
$4,9
00pe
r ET
27/1
01C
ompl
ied
100%
$85
0M
86%
Com
plie
d94
/101
Yes
78%
Com
plie
d
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
56
Notes1.
2. 8.3.
9.
10.4.
5.6.
11
12.
7.13.
14.
15.
16.
È Operation, maintenance and administration (OMA) cost for water and sewerage - $530/connected
100% SS compliance (column 12). (10 LWUs had no DEC discharge licence (NL), 15 did not report)
Plans (col 21) and have demonstrated long term financial sustainability of their water supply and sewerage
limit of their DEC licence for BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand). 44 out of 75 LWUs licenced by the DEC
1996 NHMRC/ARMCANZ Guidelines. 76 out of 98 LWUs complied with these guidelines (column 8).
in 2005/06 (ie. a two-part tariff or an inclining block tariff) (column (5)).
supply only or sewerage only LWUs, the management cost is shown left justified in column (18).
property (column (17)). For water supply only or sewerage only utilities, the OMA cost is shown left
Column (4) shows there were 49 LWUs responsible for water supply with a turnover of over $2M; and
Such values are shown in this table in italics bold.
È Economic real rate of return (ERRR) for water and sewerage - 2.2% (column (15)). 94 of the are shown in brackets. Refer also to Appendices E and F.
using the 2004/05 average annual residential water consumption (column (3)). The typical residential bill for water supply has been calculated on the basis of each LWU's 2005/06 tariffÈ Typical residential bill for water and sewerage - $700/assessment (column(13a). The 2005/06 typical
residential bill for sewerage is based on the LWU's access charge (col (1)) of Appendix F except for
È Typical developer charge for water and sewerage - $4,900/ET (col (14)). For LWUs with water supply
The totals shown above are for non-metropolitan NSW & therefore exclude Sydney & Hunter Water Corporations
È Average annual residential water consumption - 200kL/connected property (column (3)).
È Debt/equity for water and sewerage - 4% (column (16)).
5 LWUs where account was also taken of the LWU's usage charges.
only or sewerage only, this is shown left justified in column (14) while the result for amalgamated LWUs
development of these draft business plans is required (shown as "Yes*" in column 21).
Strategic Business Plans - 82 LWUs have completed their water supply and sewerage Strategic Business
businesses to comply with National Competition Policy. A number of these plans now need updating. A further 12 LWUs have prepared draft Strategic Business Plans for their businesses, but further
107 non-metropolitan LWUs had a positive real rate of return. Refer also to Appendices E and F.The performance indicators for Sydney and Hunter Water Corporations are from WSAA facts 2005 .
È Management cost for water supply and sewerage - $200/connected property (column (18)). For water
have residential tariffs independent of land value. Refer also to Appendix E. È 101 were responsible for sewerage.
Of the 107 LWUs,
No WS means not responsible for water supply; No SGE means not responsible for sewerage.
È 5 LWUs (Gosford Council, Wyong Council, Cobar WB, Fish River WS, Country Energy)
È 107 non-metropolitan Local Water Utilities (LWUs).
È 102 local government councils (under Local Government Act 1993 ),
Pay-for-Use Pricing & Full Cost Recovery - 56 of the 95 LWUs have pay-for-use water supply pricing
Government's Policy Statement on Application of National Competition Policy to Local Government, June 1996 ).
supply and sewerage, 18 are Category 1 for water supply only, and 2 are Category 1 for sewerage only.
33 such utilities responsible for sewerage (column (9).
In addition, 93 of these water supply LWUs (col 6) and 94 of the 101 LWUs responsible for sewerage (col 10)
Such tariffs comply with IPART recommendations and COAG Water Reforms.
This table shows the key 2004/05 performance indicators/characteristics for NSW water utilities. A more detailed breakdown is provided in Tables 6 to 18 and Figures 1 to 83 of the 2004/05 NSW Water Supply
È 3 metropolitan water utilities (Sydney and Hunter Water Corporations and Hawkesbury Council), and
an overall comparison of their performance with that of other NSW LWUs. However, it is important to ensure that
In NSW in 2004/05, there were 110 water utilities comprising:
and Sewerage Benchmarking Report (www.deus.nsw.gov.au/water). This table enables LWUs to carry out
any such comparisons are made with LWUs with similar businesses (refer to pages 14, 17, and 18).
Where an LWU has not reported an item for 2004/05, the value previously reported has been used where available.
The 107 LWUs comprised:
under the Water Management Act 2000 .
È 98 were responsible for water supply (including 3 for bulk supply [Cobar WB, Fish River WS, Rous Water]),
È 92 were responsible for both water supply and sewerage, 6 for water supply only and 9 for sewerage only.in 2005/06 (cols 5, 20), residential tariffs independent of land value (cols 6, 10) together with a
achieved 100% BOD compliance (column 11). (10 LWUs had no DEC discharge licence (NL), 16 did not report)
Columns (3), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17) and (18) show that the Statewide medians (non-metropolitan) were:
COAG Strategic Framework for Water Reform.
E.coli - 98% of the 29,300 samples tested for NSW LWUs achieved 100% compliance with the
BOD - 95% of the 4,500 sampling days for NSW LWUs achieved 100% compliance with the 90-percentile
and Hawkesbury Council. The totals for the Water Supply Assessments (col (1)), Annual Water ConsumptionThe results for residential tariff independent of land value (col 6) for amalgamated LWUs are shown in brackets.
The number of sewerage assessments for LWUs responsible for sewerage only (column (1)) is shown left justified.
replacement cost of assets was $10,800M (column (19)).È Total turnover for water supply and sewerage was $850M (column (13)) and the current
justified in column (17). Refer also to Appendices E and F.
Category 1 Businesses - Category 1 businesses are defined as having an annual turnover of over $2M (NSW
51 LWUs are Category 1 businesses (shown in bold in Cols (4) & (9)). 31 of these are Category 1 for both
Pay-for-use water supply tariff - 87 of the 95 water supply LWUs have a pay-for-use water supply tariff
(col (2)) and Turnover (column (4)) exclude double-counting where bulk water suppliers are involved. 34,900 chemical samples tested for NSW LWUs achieved 100% compliance with the
water quality (health related). 72 out of 98 LWUs complied with physical water quality (non-health related).È Total annual water consumption was 335,000 ML (column (2)).È Total number of water supply assessments in non-metropolitan NSW was 790,000 (column (1)).
their DEC licence for SS (Suspended Solids). 27 out of 76 LWUs licenced by the DEC achieved SS - 91% of the 4,600 sampling days for NSW LWUs achieved 100% compliance with the 90-percentile limit of
1996 NHMRC/ARMCANZ Guidelines. Col (7) shows that 84 LWUs complied with chemical
positive ERRR (App E and F) for each of water supply and sewerage. Such LWUs comply with the
Physical and chemical water quality - 97% of the 33,100 physical samples and 96% of the
Microbiological water quality - E.coli contamination is the primary health-related indicator.
57
App
endi
x E
- W
ater
Sup
ply
- R
esid
entia
l Cha
rges
, Bill
s, C
ost R
ecov
ery
(1)
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
02/0
303
/04
04/0
503
/04
04/0
503
/04
04/0
504
/05
Sydn
ey W
ater
Incl
inin
g B
lock
7578
76P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
ll<4
0098
101
120
>400
148
6287
741,
800
1,80
01,
800
314
289
329
2.8
4.1
3.8
7377
224
211
1,68
5,00
0
Hun
ter W
ater
Dec
linin
g B
lock
2625
32P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
ll<1
000
9810
110
9>1
000
103
4956
4490
090
090
023
522
524
63.
74.
23.
289
8620
819
721
1,20
0LW
Us w
ith >
10,
000
Prop
ertie
s1
Gos
ford
Two
Part
7172
81P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll73
7693
7285
108
2,04
02,
110
2,30
022
821
824
819
918
421
20.
2-1
.1-1
.969
7319
318
066
,100
2W
yong
Two
Part
8283
92P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll73
7693
7175
912,
500
2,50
02,
500
226
225
257
209
206
213
7.2
4.1
2.2
6866
188
178
57,1
003
Shoa
lhav
enIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck21
213
095
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<300
All
<450
2060
70>3
00>4
5070
105
4443
572,
300
2,37
02,
440
254
268
212
261
267
213
4.0
4.3
3.1
2244
230
167
43,8
004
Rou
s (B
ulk
Supp
lier)
(No
Sge)
9410
4P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
ll87
9657
543,
120
3,19
03,
280
-0.8
1.4
0.2
100
35,8
005
Mid
Coa
st(C
ombi
ned
- Unf
ilteT
wo
Part
168
168
140
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
7171
120
7279
923,
500
3,80
04,
000
332
358
385
335
325
178
4.8
5.3
4.2
2521
920
435
,000
6Tw
eed
Two
Part
106
106
90P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll62
6882
6262
684,
100
4,32
54,
330
238
255
271
239
212
241
2.8
3.4
4.2
6268
219
221
28,1
007
Port
Mac
quar
ie-H
astin
gs (U
Incl
inin
g B
lock
180
185
113
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
<270
9093
125
>270
250
103
111
111
4,50
05,
850
7,01
035
235
134
533
932
635
33.
54.
22.
350
4917
818
627
,100
8R
iver
ina
(Gro
undw
ater
) (NT
wo
Part
8080
80P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll65
6570
3239
1,30
01,
400
2,30
034
131
032
039
134
934
44.
63.
92.
376
7435
434
326
,600
10C
offs
Har
bour
Two
Part
184
193
200
PP
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
125
131
136
7983
5,55
05,
750
5,99
042
044
145
233
535
538
55.
75.
36.
564
6418
918
622
,600
11A
lbur
y C
ityIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck
153
7684
PP
Nil
Nil
<300
<275
<250
1544
45>3
00>2
75>2
5048
8890
4242
321,
490
4,59
04,
590
201
225
228
230
221
221
0.1
1.0
0.1
4372
307
284
22,0
0012
Fish
Riv
er W
S (B
ulk
Supp
lier)
(No
Sge)
MA
QM
AQ
MA
QP
PM
AQM
AQM
AQ
14
10
2.7
0.6
1.0
100
21,6
0013
Tam
wor
th R
egio
nal
Incl
inin
g B
lock
128
138
150
PP
Nil
Nil
All
<450
<450
6570
80>4
50>4
5075
*85
5858
3,45
03,
520
3,52
032
234
840
439
833
033
80.
71.
72.
054
6929
431
719
,700
14C
lare
nce
Val
ley
Two
Part
191
160
90P
PN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll69
7798
544,
000
4,14
04,
140
341
321
264
269
12.1
8.9
4821
617
819
,200
15Eu
robo
dalla
(Unf
ilter
ed)
Two
Part
220
220
220
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
8010
012
099
9511
85,
000
5,00
08,
980
385
403
402
344
363
349
2.7
2.5
3.4
4038
183
151
18,5
0016
Win
geca
rrib
eeTw
o Pa
rt19
719
719
7P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<1
50<1
50<1
5053
5353
>150
>150
>150
143*
143*
143
5055
622,
510
2,51
02,
510
406
368
314
407
401
385
5.0
5.6
4.1
4949
214
220
18,3
0017
Que
anbe
yan
(Ret
icul
ator
)In
clin
ing
Blo
ck22
223
023
8P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<1
76<1
76<1
7673
9510
0>1
76>1
76>1
7611
013
515
011
410
180
780
780
6,73
043
337
742
843
635
438
52.
10.
40.
851
4915
518
516
,900
18D
ubbo
Incl
inin
g B
lock
210
210
175
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
<550
5252
70>5
5010
554
5259
2,43
02,
510
2,64
047
244
849
845
443
643
81.
52.
12.
255
5645
946
215
,300
19O
rang
eIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck30
028
010
2P
P15
2N
ilN
ilA
llA
ll<4
5052
5514
1>4
5021
252
8110
34,
850
5,74
05,
870
379
393
414
425
375
417
1.4
2.7
3.6
3020
622
115
,000
20G
oulb
urn
Mul
war
eeTw
o Pa
rt22
524
225
6P
PN
ilN
il<4
00<4
00<2
9263
6670
>400
>400
>292
141
148
157
8812
412
43,
849
5,16
02,
860
318
339
321
446
408
297
3.2
1.1
0.3
4340
147
9314
,400
21B
athu
rst R
egio
nal
45kL
Allo
wan
ce25
025
025
0P
P45
4545
>45
>45
>45
5050
50>3
00>3
00>2
5580
8080
6458
612,
060
2,16
02,
160
375
420
369
391
384
290
2.1
2.6
-0.1
4124
333
283
13,6
0022
Lism
ore
(Ret
icul
ator
)Tw
o Pa
rt86
9210
0P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll86
9211
110
892
106
1,86
01,
900
1,94
025
926
429
921
124
025
9-0
.41.
51.
468
7018
617
913
,500
23B
ega
Val
ley
(Unf
ilter
ed)
Two
Part
146
146
125
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
8288
110
7894
115
2,95
04,
500
4,50
028
927
632
132
230
216
60.
70.
10.
855
1815
817
812
,900
24B
allin
a (R
etic
ulat
or)
Incl
inin
g B
lock
9090
95P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<3
50<3
50<3
5072
7782
>350
>350
>350
9510
010
510
694
101
4,51
04,
510
4,51
023
127
027
622
723
924
8-1
.90.
6-2
.670
1723
422
012
,300
25K
emps
ey (G
roun
dwat
er)
Two
Part
252
265
265
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
8083
8658
5362
2,94
02,
940
7,47
041
042
942
540
238
738
03.
53.
66.
641
3719
718
711
,900
26C
ount
ry E
nerg
yIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck23
318
518
5P
P20
0N
ilN
il>2
00<2
00<4
0065
4871
>400
>200
>400
178
75*
220
152
148
9328
837
338
436
540
844
82.
6-0
.10.
748
4532
328
110
,500
27B
yron
(Ret
icul
ator
)Tw
o Pa
rt95
9910
1P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll92
9610
811
892
121
6,46
06,
460
6,46
026
429
133
224
128
630
4-1
.62.
1-0
.367
6920
021
410
,200
28A
Gol
denf
ield
s (R
etic
ulat
or) T
wo
part
204
204
204
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
102
104
106
5585
2,00
02,
000
2,00
051
455
353
445
851
352
2-0
.7-0
.4-1
.921
6333
531
19,
600
28B
Gol
denf
ield
s (B
ulk
Supp
lier)
(No
Sge)
PP
412,
000
2,00
02,
000
2.2
-0.4
2.8
6717
,700
LWU
s with
3,0
01 -
10,0
00 P
rope
rtie
s2,
000
29A
rmid
ale
Dum
ares
qIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck18
018
021
9P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<4
00<2
00<4
0070
7577
>400
>200
>400
88*
100*
103
8190
913,
620
3,62
03,
620
378
369
414
390
339
375
0.7
-0.7
-0.6
708
239
253
8,00
030
Grif
fith
Incl
inin
g B
lock
186
168
153
PP
200
Nil
Nil
>200
<200
<200
3725
30>2
00>2
0047
5534
3533
2,11
02,
855
2,93
039
840
448
056
751
844
93.
40.
75.
051
5059
668
57,
400
31Li
thgo
wIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck26
026
020
0P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<5
00<5
00<5
0038
5185
>500
>500
>500
100*
132*
160
8690
116
2,23
02,
230
2,23
034
636
935
442
037
137
4-0
.30.
7-2
.028
2721
418
17,
200
32M
id W
este
rn R
egio
nal
Two
Part
300
265
265
PP
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
9096
9681
108
2,79
82,
800
2,80
054
953
153
951
950
157
53.
02.
02.
744
4227
728
66,
500
33R
ichm
ond
Val
ley
Incl
inin
g B
lock
229
215
215
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<275
<200
<200
4055
55>2
75>2
00>2
0060
*80
8077
7377
2,19
22,
330
2,33
026
238
539
424
426
532
6-0
.42.
02.
848
3927
528
66,
500
34N
ambu
cca
(Gro
undw
ater
)Tw
o Pa
rt14
586
85P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll65
9090
5861
583,
300
3,69
53,
780
299
254
270
221
233
230
5.1
4.5
3.6
4566
186
205
6,00
035
Sing
leto
nTw
o Pa
rt 19
419
419
4P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll77
7777
5058
612,
600
2,66
02,
730
494
425
432
547
417
366
7.8
9.8
5.4
5652
301
309
5,80
036
Park
esIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck34
035
029
5P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<3
65<3
65<3
6529
3060
>365
>365
>365
111
114
160
3436
393,
760
3,87
05,
110
501
474
512
493
457
494
2.5
3.0
1.9
3130
378
362
5,60
037
Inve
rell
Two
Part
220
230
245
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
9510
010
094
8894
1,69
01,
690
4,24
046
446
847
244
242
446
30.
21.
02.
349
5023
822
75,
100
38M
oree
Pla
ins (
Gro
undw
ateT
wo
Part
295
265
255
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
5056
6255
8244
3,27
03,
270
3,27
053
441
154
460
056
459
2-2
.35.
51.
762
6126
146
75,
000
39C
owra
Incl
inin
g B
lock
320
330
347
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<500
<500
<500
2828
36>5
00>5
00>5
0055
*57
*71
5483
104
2,50
02,
500
2,50
042
240
743
348
346
545
81.
2-0
.7-1
.320
1527
324
05,
000
40C
entra
l Tab
lela
nds (
No
SgIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck12
412
412
4P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<5
000
All
<450
106
112
116
<900
0>4
5072
*17
470
893,
000
3,00
04,
430
419
408
398
396
407
416
-0.1
0.0
1.2
7137
254
236
5,00
041
Mus
wel
lbro
okIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck12
312
716
7P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
ll<3
5097
107
120
>350
180
6665
592,
370
2,37
03,
300
445
494
544
487
442
503
8.5
7.9
8.5
7576
343
314
4,80
0
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
ILL
S
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial
Bill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(8)
($/p
rope
rty)
(9)
Ave
rage
Res
iden
tial B
illA
llow
ance
(14)
(13)
(6)
(5a)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L C
HA
RG
ES/
OM
A
Acc
ess C
harg
e (o
r M
inim
um)
($)
Cha
rges
(c/k
L)C
harg
es (c
/kL)
Ope
ratin
g C
ost
(OM
A)
Acc
ess
Cha
rge
Inde
pend
ent
of L
and
Val
ue?
(kL)
Step
(kL)
Typ
e of
Tar
iff
(12)
CO
ST R
EC
OV
ER
Y
Con
nect
edPr
oper
ties
Res
iden
tial
Rev
enue
from
Usa
ge
Cha
r ges
kL/p
rope
rty(%
of
resi
dent
ial
Ann
ual
Res
iden
tial
Cns
mpt
n(P
otab
le)*
*
ER
RR
(%)
(5c)
(5d)
(5b)
(c/k
L)St
ep (k
L)
Usa
ge C
harg
e
Step
1
Ste
p 2
(3)
(4)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(2)
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
er
Cha
rge
($/E
T)
(7)
(15)
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
58
App
endi
x E
- W
ater
Sup
ply
- R
esid
entia
l Cha
rges
, Bill
s, C
ost R
ecov
ery
(1)
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
02/0
303
/04
04/0
503
/04
04/0
503
/04
04/0
504
/05
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
ILL
S
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial
Bill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(8)
($/p
rope
rty)
(9)
Ave
rage
Res
iden
tial B
illA
llow
ance
(14)
(13)
(6)
(5a)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L C
HA
RG
ES/
OM
A
Acc
ess C
harg
e (o
r M
inim
um)
($)
Cha
rges
(c/k
L)C
harg
es (c
/kL)
Ope
ratin
g C
ost
(OM
A)
Acc
ess
Cha
rge
Inde
pend
ent
of L
and
Val
ue?
(kL)
Step
(kL)
Typ
e of
Tar
iff
(12)
CO
ST R
EC
OV
ER
Y
Con
nect
edPr
oper
ties
Res
iden
tial
Rev
enue
from
Usa
ge
Cha
r ges
kL/p
rope
rty(%
of
resi
dent
ial
Ann
ual
Res
iden
tial
Cns
mpt
n(P
otab
le)*
*
ER
RR
(%)
(5c)
(5d)
(5b)
(c/k
L)St
ep (k
L)
Usa
ge C
harg
e
Step
1
Ste
p 2
(3)
(4)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(2)
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
er
Cha
rge
($/E
T)
(7)
(15)
42C
orow
aIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck21
214
012
0P
PN
ilN
il>4
50<3
00<9
9950
1050
>300
>100
050
110
2635
440
440
317
441
414
335
355
319
5.7
5.3
-0.5
6435
583
587
4,40
043
Tum
utIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck
277
296
89P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<4
00<4
00<4
0055
5980
>400
>400
>400
7783
100
4231
532,
790
2,87
03,
970
457
477
330
426
434
451
2.9
2.0
3.1
3029
306
301
4,30
044
Gun
neda
h (G
roun
dwat
er)
Incl
inin
g B
lock
270
278
125
OP
440
440
Nil
>440
>440
<450
6163
45>4
5090
2736
333,
390
3,39
03,
390
347
278
290
440
388
389
5.9
3.6
2.5
2424
357
367
4,30
045
Upp
er H
unte
rTw
o Pa
rt19
320
020
5P
PN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll94
9710
054
472,
110
2,11
02,
110
444
459
444
485
456
426
4.2
4.2
5.6
5355
277
239
4,20
046
Nar
rabr
i (G
roun
dwat
er)
Two
Part
153
153
40P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll33
3335
1620
212,
200
2,20
02,
200
308
338
237
418
324
335
6.0
5.1
5.8
2727
561
562
4,20
047
Bel
linge
n (U
nfilt
ered
)Tw
o Pa
rt 20
720
721
4P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll61
6264
5062
674,
310
6,14
06,
300
352
346
357
312
348
239
1.7
1.8
0.5
4121
225
223
3,90
048
Leet
onIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck24
417
517
5P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<3
50<4
00<3
5043
4649
>350
>400
>350
5155
6436
3947
2,60
02,
600
2,60
050
346
145
853
449
746
18.
83.
42.
560
6457
852
43,
900
49Y
oung
(Ret
icul
ator
)In
clin
ing
Blo
ck40
042
017
5P
P26
526
5N
il>2
65>2
65<1
0012
012
512
5>1
0017
082
9484
2,00
02,
000
2,00
043
042
054
954
853
055
11.
91.
66.
430
3226
424
73,
900
50C
oom
a-M
onar
oTw
o Pa
rt33
534
234
2P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll50
5260
6269
692,
300
2,34
02,
340
500
505
549
493
524
561
6.7
7.7
6.5
3335
314
344
3,60
051
Forb
esIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck28
929
818
6P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<6
00<6
00<4
0026
3061
>600
>600
>400
5260
9225
3736
650
670
670
418
391
416
476
399
410
4.5
2.7
2.9
3127
410
377
3,60
052
Snow
y R
iver
(Unf
ilter
ed)
Two
Part
253
262
455
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
4142
4458
312,
500
2,50
02,
500
382
511
570
328
387
0.8
1.8
3459
154
23,
400
53B
errig
an (D
ual S
uppl
y)25
0kL
Allo
wan
ce47
448
950
6P
P25
025
025
0>2
50>2
50>2
5055
5557
3544
4747
54,
200
4,20
053
348
950
654
552
548
03.
71.
62.
510
1532
924
73,
200
53B
errig
an (N
on P
otab
le)
500k
L A
llow
ance
500
>500
>500
>500
2727
2849
045
0LW
Us w
ith 1
,501
- 3,
000
Prop
ertie
s54
Den
iliqu
inIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck51
946
027
4P
P10
00N
ilN
il>1
000
<800
<400
5615
53>8
00>4
0031
*81
2428
3547
945
045
051
956
464
666
363
367
510
.58.
45.
88
1969
659
73,
000
55W
arru
mbu
ngle
418k
L A
llow
ance
465
345
419
PP
535
418
>683
>535
>418
6878
9086
661,
000
1,00
01,
000
465
345
419
451
454
304
-2.9
-2.1
311
368
3,00
056
Yas
s Val
ley
Two
Part
200
171
196
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
100
110
115
8896
109
1,50
08,
280
8,49
040
139
642
138
941
038
60.
82.
81.
552
5820
419
52,
900
57W
ellin
gton
Incl
inin
g B
lock
420
380
310
PP
350
Nil
Nil
>350
<500
<300
100
6595
>500
<500
8510
588
9110
31,
400
1,48
01,
480
857
574
554
693
538
616
2.2
0.9
2.3
2138
298
256
2,80
058
Coo
tam
undr
a (R
etic
ulat
or)I
nclin
ing
Blo
ck29
829
896
OP
219
219
Nil
>219
>219
<450
113
113
123
>719
>450
9999
246
8610
110
02,
000
2,00
02,
000
393
359
390
463
446
415
4.8
2.4
1.8
2320
273
239
2,80
059
Lach
lan
Incl
inin
g B
lock
220
230
230
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<300
<300
<300
5760
70>3
00>3
00>3
0010
010
010
060
4696
570
658
522
472
411
415
1.6
-0.7
-2.3
5249
548
382
2,70
060
Gle
n In
nes S
ever
nIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck17
588
88P
PN
ilN
ilA
ll<4
50<4
5080
130
130
>450
>450
195
195
972,
590
329
339
331
339
357
-1.4
-0.6
4719
318
72,
700
61Li
verp
ool P
lain
sIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck20
017
410
0P
P30
0N
il>4
00>3
00<3
0050
6060
>300
100
6470
3,39
03,
390
200
174
268
351
331
374
0.6
0.6
-1.0
3027
247
280
2,20
062
Nar
rom
ine
(Gro
undw
ater
)Tw
o Pa
rt 20
020
017
5P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll45
5062
3940
4750
050
050
045
853
258
239
441
543
2-2
.01.
90.
656
5866
365
62,
000
63N
arra
nder
a (G
roun
dwat
er)T
wo
Part
236
236
225
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
4751
5830
3234
1,00
01,
000
1,00
052
352
048
156
047
554
17.
64.
37.
555
5255
644
52,
000
64D
ungo
g (R
etic
ulat
or)
Incl
inin
g B
lock
180
189
194
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<220
<220
<220
6265
66>2
20>2
20>2
2012
412
913
343
5610
72,
650
2,65
02,
700
319
310
310
427
353
363
2.6
1.5
3.0
4239
186
175
2,00
065
Mur
ray
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
Two
Part
400
177
177
PP
250
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
5056
5633
4153
700
700
700
409
472
420
472
511
487
5.6
7.1
7.0
1746
237
222
1,90
065
Mur
ray
(Non
Pot
able
)Tw
o Pa
rt63
63A
llA
llA
llN
il38
3852
039
067
Cob
arIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck51
730
029
0P
P55
0N
ilN
il>5
50<5
00<4
5013
565
60>5
00>4
5013
010
040
3138
1,40
01,
410
1,41
060
061
659
561
658
971
1-1
.71.
71.
524
5148
548
51,
900
66C
obar
WB
(Bul
k Su
pplie
r) (N
o Sg
e)
1,
900
68Te
nter
field
Two
Part
267
278
210
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
6871
112
122
9815
41,
500
1,50
01,
500
397
423
393
411
322
379
-3.2
1.6
-5.1
3134
204
163
1,90
070
Kyo
gle
Two
Part
175
175
175
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
8610
010
585
8393
1,00
01,
000
1,00
032
636
231
627
624
828
4-0
.8-1
.6-0
.552
6018
713
51,
800
71Pa
lera
ngIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck29
213
016
0P
PN
ilN
il>2
80<2
00<2
0085
8592
>200
>200
9012
569
2,45
02,
490
2,49
029
233
632
640
81.
91.
841
240
180
1,80
073
Upp
er L
achl
anIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck37
537
540
1P
PN
ilN
il<3
00<3
00<3
0082
9092
>300
>300
>300
9810
011
010
817
078
01,
600
1,60
052
854
353
750
747
148
23.
53.
91.
826
3218
714
81,
700
74W
entw
orth
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
Incl
inin
g B
lock
485
200
220
PP
250
Nil
Nil
>250
<250
<250
210
100
110
>250
>250
250
260
2432
352,
120
2,37
52,
880
485
524
646
653
752
1.9
0.8
0.7
3858
224
104
1,70
074
Wen
twor
th (N
on P
otab
le)
Incl
inin
g B
lock
100
110
PN
ilA
ll<7
00<7
00N
il30
35>7
00>7
0050
6080
068
075
Coo
nam
ble
(Gro
undw
ater
)360
kL A
llow
ance
194
194
175
OP
809
808
360
>808
>808
>360
2424
4815
1113
450
500
270
300
375
361
291
2.1
3.8
2.9
1213
1128
621
1,60
0LW
Us w
ith 2
00 -
1,50
0 Pr
oper
ties
76H
arde
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
300k
L A
llow
ance
435
453
470
PP
300
300
300
>300
>300
>300
9710
010
411
688
108
2,00
02,
000
2,00
068
461
959
399
790
989
4-2
.3-2
.6-3
.842
4246
641
81,
500
79W
alge
tt (D
ual S
uppl
y)U
nmet
ered
565
565
570
PP
All
3346
3756
556
557
070
271
574
5-2
.0-1
.9-3
.112
1314
652
31,
400
79W
alge
tt (N
on P
otab
le)
Unm
eter
edA
llA
llA
llN
ilN
ilN
il70
011
0080
Gre
ater
Hum
e40
0kL
Allo
wan
ce20
042
542
5O
O40
040
0>4
00>4
00>4
0090
9090
>100
0>10
00>1
000
110
110
110
8592
651,
300
1,30
01,
300
200
425
425
408
377
382
3.3
1.0
1.2
3221
290
318
1,40
081
Gw
ydir
Incl
inin
g B
lock
344
391
364
PP
320
Nil
>320
>320
<450
170
175
80>4
5022
037
2,00
036
841
663
047
13.
35
334
333
1,40
082
Glo
uces
ter
Two
Part
385
230
225
PP
350
Nil
Nil
>350
All
All
110
110
118
112
140
165
1,53
55,
580
5,58
038
552
144
341
145
347
80.
2-4
.811
.95
4126
518
51,
400
83O
bero
n (R
etic
ulat
or)
Two
Part
188
9194
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
9497
100
4837
461,
100
1,10
01,
100
426
287
261
365
338
345
2.2
3.0
2.0
4948
202
167
1,40
084
Gilg
andr
a (G
roun
dwat
er)
Two
Part
275
235
250
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
3045
5029
2937
42
142
748
036
635
941
8-1
.52.
82.
541
5142
646
01,
300
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
59
App
endi
x E
- W
ater
Sup
ply
- R
esid
entia
l Cha
rges
, Bill
s, C
ost R
ecov
ery
(1)
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
02/0
303
/04
04/0
503
/04
04/0
503
/04
04/0
504
/05
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
ILL
S
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial
Bill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(8)
($/p
rope
rty)
(9)
Ave
rage
Res
iden
tial B
illA
llow
ance
(14)
(13)
(6)
(5a)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L C
HA
RG
ES/
OM
A
Acc
ess C
harg
e (o
r M
inim
um)
($)
Cha
rges
(c/k
L)C
harg
es (c
/kL)
Ope
ratin
g C
ost
(OM
A)
Acc
ess
Cha
rge
Inde
pend
ent
of L
and
Val
ue?
(kL)
Step
(kL)
Typ
e of
Tar
iff
(12)
CO
ST R
EC
OV
ER
Y
Con
nect
edPr
oper
ties
Res
iden
tial
Rev
enue
from
Usa
ge
Cha
r ges
kL/p
rope
rty(%
of
resi
dent
ial
Ann
ual
Res
iden
tial
Cns
mpt
n(P
otab
le)*
*
ER
RR
(%)
(5c)
(5d)
(5b)
(c/k
L)St
ep (k
L)
Usa
ge C
harg
e
Step
1
Ste
p 2
(3)
(4)
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
(2)
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
er
Cha
rge
($/E
T)
(7)
(15)
85U
ralla
Two
Part
325
186
190
PP
275
Nil
Nil
>275
All
All
5070
7012
811
311
835
036
032
532
032
736
236
437
4-2
.9-0
.4-0
.48
4219
219
61,
300
86H
ay (D
ual S
uppl
y)In
clin
ing
Blo
ck35
426
070
PP
300
Nil
Nil
>300
<300
<300
7750
58>3
00>3
0080
8716
2524
354
360
371
338
352
342
-1.3
-1.1
-1.9
525
200
140
1,30
086
Hay
(Non
Pot
able
)U
nmet
ered
220
Nil
All
All
All
Nil
Nil
Nil
790
670
87B
ourk
e (D
ual S
uppl
y)Tw
o Pa
rt43
445
017
0P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
llA
ll37
3750
4122
1840
040
040
060
359
070
063
962
172
6##
#-9
.3-5
.718
2537
850
01,
300
87B
ourk
e (N
on P
otab
le)
Two
Part
280
All
All
All
1580
1780
88W
akoo
l (D
ual S
uppl
y)In
clin
ing
Blo
ck24
568
515
0P
P30
030
0N
il>3
00>3
00<4
0065
6580
>400
160
3439
6673
610
7849
055
977
22.
32.
21.
83
953
258
91,
300
88W
akoo
l (N
on-P
otab
le)
Unm
eter
ed
40
040
090
010
0089
Bog
anIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck54
919
519
5P
P70
0N
ilN
il>7
00<4
50<4
5078
6070
>450
>450
9210
566
6273
549
520
537
619
652
604
-1.5
-0.7
-3.1
1465
510
476
1,20
090
Guy
raIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck
232
232
245
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<750
<750
<750
8088
92>7
50>7
50>7
5014
516
016
510
778
6355
555
556
037
238
653
837
937
639
4-1
.3-0
.61.
045
4617
531
91,
100
91C
abon
neIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck52
047
017
0P
P30
0N
ilN
il>3
00<3
00<3
0071
125
>300
>300
>300
175
115
275
9088
111
400
400
400
520
577
390
599
602
528
0.4
1.8
2.1
2012
151
176
1,10
092
Car
rath
ool (
Gro
undw
ater
)In
clin
ing
Blo
ck*
315
315
325
PP
500
500
Nil
>500
>500
<350
2833
70>1
000>
1000
>350
4447
8027
3426
840
860
900
326
315
684
506
514
743
1.7
1.0
0.8
5048
949
31,
100
93Tu
mba
rum
baIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck31
031
031
0P
P50
0N
ilN
il>5
00<5
00<4
0077
5560
>500
>400
8790
4855
5940
040
041
031
045
352
839
347
348
91.
55.
53.
026
2726
136
41,
000
94G
unda
gai
Incl
inin
g B
lock
7070
75P
PN
ilN
ilN
il<3
00<3
00<3
0060
6365
>300
>300
>300
80*
8385
5957
7057
058
060
021
726
624
240
030
021
61.
1-0
.60.
280
6931
125
71,
000
96W
arre
n (D
ual S
uppl
y)In
clin
ing
Blo
ck36
536
521
0P
P65
065
0N
il>6
50>6
50<4
5054
6070
>450
105
3232
4036
536
538
244
044
444
90.
20.
6-1
.320
2019
917
096
096
War
ren
(Non
Pot
able
)In
clin
ing
Blo
ckN
ilA
llA
ll<4
50N
ilN
il25
>450
4548
038
097
Bom
bala
Incl
inin
g B
lock
360
373
373
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
<350
<350
<350
4143
44>3
50>3
50>3
5090
9396
7859
531,
190
1,28
01,
280
468
561
653
427
452
411
0.7
3.9
3.1
3122
392
481
860
98W
alch
aIn
clin
ing
Blo
ck32
432
112
0P
PN
ilN
ilN
ilA
llA
ll<3
0087
9117
5>3
0026
013
412
813
946
546
841
248
049
752
2-0
.1-0
.3-0
.338
4016
216
782
010
0B
alra
nald
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
Two
Part
456
340
171
PP
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
5557
1216
2591
091
091
045
650
553
054
453
945
71.
81.
40.
721
179
150
800
100
Bal
rana
ld (N
on P
otab
le))
200k
L A
llow
ance
181
200
All
>200
>200
2021
990
790
101
Mur
rum
bidg
ee (G
roun
dwaT
wo
Part
180
180
180
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
2020
2019
2124
1,00
01,
000
1,00
032
129
629
433
734
732
81.
62.
41.
350
5258
157
079
010
3C
entra
l Dar
ling
(Dua
l Sup
plyT
wo
Part
535
100
105
PP
100
100
Nil
>100
>100
All
280
290
300
8568
8070
081
377
961
577
644
0-5
.6-4
.2-3
.151
5315
313
172
010
3
(N
on P
otab
le-W
ilcan
nTw
o Pa
rt40
042
5N
il>2
00A
llA
ll12
059
055
010
4B
ooro
wa
Two
Part
390
300
310
PP
Nil
Nil
Nil
All
All
All
7010
010
588
8389
400
400
400
578
517
536
489
502
493
1.8
3.1
5.7
2842
217
215
570
105
Bre
war
rina
Unm
eter
ed60
064
870
0O
O
A
llA
llA
ll27
2828
600
648
700
575
744
811
-0.1
0.5
5.1
3835
519
525
470
106
Jeril
derie
(Dua
l Sup
ply)
Incl
inin
g B
lock
403
406
160
OP
300
300
Nil
>300
>300
<200
100
100
140
>600
>600
>200
90*
90*
200
4572
8670
02,
000
2,03
045
040
670
554
254
964
32.
51.
2-0
.516
1617
121
746
010
6Je
rilde
rie (N
on P
otab
le)
300k
L A
llow
ance
225
300
>300
>300
>300
3737
3737
045
0N
OTE
S:11
LW
Us h
ad a
dua
l wat
er su
pply
to o
ver 5
0% o
f the
ir re
side
ntia
l cus
tom
ers w
ith a
pot
able
supp
ly fo
r ind
oor u
se a
nd a
non
-pot
able
supp
ly fo
r out
door
use
(ref
er to
Gen
eral
Not
es -
Not
e 10
on
page
15)
.6
LWU
s (B
athu
rst,
Ber
rigan
, Coo
nam
ble,
Gre
ater
Hum
e, H
arde
n, W
arru
mbu
ngle
) hav
e a
tarif
f whi
ch in
clud
es a
n al
low
ance
for t
heir
pota
ble
wat
er su
pply
.2
LWU
s (B
rew
arrin
a an
d W
alge
tt) h
ave
a po
tabl
e w
ater
supp
ly w
hich
is u
nmet
ered
.
**To
tal A
nnua
l Res
iden
tial c
onsu
mpt
ion
for L
WU
s with
a d
ual w
ater
supp
ly is
show
n ab
ove
in th
e no
n-po
tabl
e w
ater
supp
ly ro
w. T
his i
s the
sum
of L
WU
's po
tabl
e an
d no
n-po
tabl
e co
nsum
ptio
n fo
r the
tow
ns se
rved
by
a du
al w
ater
supp
ly (r
efer
to N
ote
10 o
n pa
ge 1
5).
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
60
App
endi
x F
- Sew
erag
e - R
esid
entia
l Cha
rges
, Bill
s, C
ost R
ecov
ery
Non
-Res
&
Tra
de W
aste
C
harg
es
Non
-Res
&
Tra
de W
aste
V
olum
e
(% o
f Ann
ual
rate
s & C
harg
es)
(% o
f Sew
age
Col
lect
ed)
(5)
(6)
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
02/0
303
/04
04/0
504
/05
05/0
604
/05
05/0
620
04/0
520
05/0
620
04/0
520
04/0
503
/04
04/0
505
/06
03/0
404
/05
05/0
602
/03
03/0
404
/05
02/0
303
/04
04/0
504
/05
Sydn
ey W
ater
339
347
347
8088
72P
P10
611
9 P
P39
0039
0039
0033
934
734
72.
84.
13.
81,
635,
000
Hun
ter W
ater
+u27
9+us
age2
88+u
sage
268+
usag
e51
5548
PP
4243
P
P35
0035
0035
0032
333
236
33.
74.
23.
219
9,00
0LW
Us w
ith >
10,
000
Prop
ertie
s1
Gos
ford
347
352
364
9910
311
5P
P76
78 P
P1
2216
5018
0034
735
236
431
532
433
22.
11.
50.
264
,500
2W
yong
354
359
368
9311
511
5P
P64
66 P
P13
1900
2000
2000
354
359
368
333
335
335
0.8
1.1
0.2
56,1
003
Shoa
lhav
en51
551
051
516
417
218
7P
P80
80 P
P10
2418
9019
5020
1051
551
051
551
050
250
84.
64.
14.
736
,600
5M
idC
oast
(Com
bine
d)48
050
056
512
915
412
7P
P13
514
5 P
P23
1737
0037
0037
0048
050
056
544
347
950
73.
8-0
.25.
031
,100
6Tw
eed
430
435
445
7996
104
PP
6769
P
P4
2632
8034
9034
9043
043
544
541
043
542
35.
15.
36.
226
,400
9W
agga
Wag
ga27
027
930
946
5363
PP
62 P
P14
3212
9014
5014
5027
027
930
922
024
825
411
.96.
39.
025
,400
7Po
rt M
acqu
arie
-Has
tings
495
395
409
6211
210
7P
P60
62 P
P13
2800
2800
3150
495
395
409
463
450
392
6.0
5.3
1.8
24,3
0011
Alb
ury
City
275+
usag
e34
535
510
710
812
9P
P18
218
5 P
P10
3915
0054
2054
2035
334
535
531
730
731
90.
30.
20.
321
,300
10C
offs
Har
bour
537
553
572
108
115
140
PP
P
P7
2447
5049
3049
3053
755
357
257
858
960
56.
54.
87.
020
,800
13Ta
mw
orth
Reg
iona
l39
639
647
011
710
410
1P
P P
P11
2514
4014
7014
7039
639
647
039
437
935
00.
81.
14.
920
,500
15Eu
robo
dalla
450
470
482
164
203
204
PP
P
P7
160
0060
0078
0045
047
048
243
142
144
73.
44.
34.
717
,000
17Q
uean
beya
n28
329
429
486
106
100
PP
5050
1228
1080
1080
1080
283
294
294
315
334
260
5.1
4.3
0.1
15,9
0019
Ora
nge
260
273
273
5965
83P
P12
812
8 P
P3
429
0031
7031
7026
027
327
325
127
226
0-0
.80.
40.
214
,400
20G
oulb
urn
Mul
war
ee32
544
447
113
614
618
5P
P16
617
6 P
P25
3740
4045
4051
0032
544
447
135
938
228
43.
34.
65.
314
,100
18D
ubbo
403
403
421
8517
917
8O
P12
0 P
P1
1724
3025
0926
4240
340
342
138
839
440
72.
12.
42.
813
,700
16W
inge
carr
ibee
+u40
2+us
age4
02+u
sage
416+
usag
e10
512
413
9P
P40
40 P
P12
4100
4300
4800
487
488
504
437
601
495
0.9
1.9
1.7
13,3
0014
Cla
renc
e V
alle
y38
039
345
212
312
3P
P28
P
P14
3330
8000
8000
380
393
452
368
382
234
2.6
4.8
13,1
0021
Bat
hurs
t Reg
iona
l35
135
135
191
8811
8P
P78
78 P
P27
1750
1750
2050
351
351
351
315
334
308
3.1
5.2
-1.4
12,7
0024
Bal
lina
330
330
360
9510
912
0P
P10
5 P
P19
4450
5930
5930
330
330
360
355
355
352
0.4
6.0
-1.1
12,6
0022
Lism
ore
367
412
270
8793
93P
P11
0 P
P25
4370
4460
4560
367
412
270
306
341
383
2.3
2.7
3.5
11,9
00LW
Us w
ith 3
,001
- 10
,000
Pro
pert
ies
23B
ega
Val
ley
400
490
540
156
221
241
PP
138
138O
P17
2580
5200
5200
400
490
540
356
356
460
-2.6
-2.4
1.1
9,80
027
Byr
on+u
446+
usag
e464
+usa
ge47
818
716
121
1P
P72
101
P
P20
5980
6170
9200
592
572
478
558
670
591
2.1
2.6
0.1
9,80
026
Cou
ntry
Ene
rgy
231
250
268
127
140
144
PP
8086
P
P23
125
026
823
421
118
40.
6-0
.3-3
.99,
700
25K
emps
ey48
249
949
915
515
315
6P
P12
6P
2943
2045
3063
0048
249
949
943
745
947
02.
19.
61.
58,
700
31Li
thgo
w30
331
338
098
87O
P98
P
P3
1780
1790
1790
303
313
380
256
267
291
-1.7
3.0
2.8
7,60
029
Arm
idal
e D
umar
esq
255
264
272
119
133
117
PP
O
3018
1240
1240
1240
255
264
272
242
239
252
-1.0
-1.1
0.0
7,50
030
AH
awke
sbur
y35
937
138
496
106
PP
155
155
P
P27
5590
5590
5590
359
371
384
347
363
371
0.0
-0.2
-1.4
7,30
030
Grif
fith
270
284
340
120
100
149
P P
P17
4021
0016
5016
9027
028
434
042
242
131
70.
50.
70.
67,
200
33R
ichm
ond
Val
ley
495
418
700
131
109
115
PP
138
60O
2546
8048
2049
6049
541
870
042
143
139
97.
03.
21.
66,
000
32M
id W
este
rn R
egio
nal
380
396
396
105
130
130
PP
P
P12
1850
1850
1850
380
396
396
355
372
408
1.3
0.5
2.9
5,90
034
Nam
bucc
a36
036
036
095
106
103
PP
O
819
5035
5036
4036
036
036
033
430
931
73.
42.
63.
25,
800
35Si
ngle
ton
300
307
336
8381
77P
P P
P17
1270
1300
1330
300
307
336
313
307
316
2.7
5.2
1.3
4,90
037
Inve
rell
285
298
310
105
115
136
PP
P
O
67
1180
285
298
310
263
259
269
-3.1
-3.8
-2.3
4,70
041
Mus
wel
lbro
ok38
239
544
010
299
112
PP
150
P
P2
4742
9042
9047
5038
239
544
041
142
243
80.
82.
93.
84,
700
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
Doe
s Cou
ncil
Hav
e L
iqui
d T
rade
W
aste
Fee
s and
C
harg
es*
?
(4)
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
er
Cha
rge
($/E
quiv
alen
t Ten
emen
t [ET
])
(7)
(%)
Yes
/No
Ope
ratin
g C
ost (
OM
A)
(c/k
L)
(2)
Acc
ess C
harg
e In
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?
(3)
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(8)
(3a)
Non
-res
iden
tial
Sew
er U
sage
C
harg
e(N
ot in
cl S
DF)
c/kL
CO
ST R
EC
OV
ER
Y
(11)
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial B
illE
cono
mic
Rea
l Rat
e of
R
etur
nC
onne
cted
Prop
ertie
s
(No.
)
(12)
($)
(1)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L C
HA
RG
ES/
OM
A
Ave
rage
Res
iden
tial B
ill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(9)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
ILL
S
Acc
ess C
harg
e (o
r M
inim
um)
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
61
App
endi
x F
- Sew
erag
e - R
esid
entia
l Cha
rges
, Bill
s, C
ost R
ecov
ery
Non
-Res
&
Tra
de W
aste
C
harg
es
Non
-Res
&
Tra
de W
aste
V
olum
e
(% o
f Ann
ual
rate
s & C
harg
es)
(% o
f Sew
age
Col
lect
ed)
(5)
(6)
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
02/0
303
/04
04/0
504
/05
05/0
604
/05
05/0
620
04/0
520
05/0
620
04/0
520
04/0
503
/04
04/0
505
/06
03/0
404
/05
05/0
602
/03
03/0
404
/05
02/0
303
/04
04/0
504
/05
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
Doe
s Cou
ncil
Hav
e L
iqui
d T
rade
W
aste
Fee
s and
C
harg
es*
?
(4)
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
er
Cha
rge
($/E
quiv
alen
t Ten
emen
t [ET
])
(7)
(%)
Yes
/No
Ope
ratin
g C
ost (
OM
A)
(c/k
L)
(2)
Acc
ess C
harg
e In
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?
(3)
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(8)
(3a)
Non
-res
iden
tial
Sew
er U
sage
C
harg
e(N
ot in
cl S
DF)
c/kL
CO
ST R
EC
OV
ER
Y
(11)
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial B
illE
cono
mic
Rea
l Rat
e of
R
etur
nC
onne
cted
Prop
ertie
s
(No.
)
(12)
($)
(1)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L C
HA
RG
ES/
OM
A
Ave
rage
Res
iden
tial B
ill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(9)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
ILL
S
Acc
ess C
harg
e (o
r M
inim
um)
36Pa
rkes
185
191
230
5553
93O
P95
P17
3860
3970
4095
185
191
230
209
210
226
1.7
6.5
2.4
4,60
042
Cor
owa
270
290
295
111
121
142
PP
P
P14
1290
1270
1270
270
290
295
298
298
318
0.2
-0.5
0.5
4,20
038
Mor
ee P
lain
s53
058
062
013
710
496
PP
100
100
P
P40
700
3000
3000
530
580
620
488
501
548
-0.6
1.6
3.5
4,20
044
Gun
neda
h23
023
724
558
7182
PP
O
P5
1950
1950
1950
230
237
245
225
217
223
2.0
1.7
-0.6
4,00
046
Nar
rabr
i29
631
646
329
865
PP
P
P6
1880
1880
1880
296
316
463
289
264
294
-0.6
-1.3
-1.9
3,80
043
Tum
ut47
048
845
511
110
592
PP
116
P
P25
3400
3610
3610
470
488
455
429
437
460
1.3
1.5
1.5
3,70
049
You
ng28
031
533
057
5458
PP
P
P20
700
700
1000
280
315
330
221
273
275
6.8
11.4
15.4
3,40
039
Cow
ra26
529
040
372
8111
0P
P P
P28
2500
2650
2650
265
290
403
273
279
313
4.2
5.9
3.8
3,40
045
Upp
er H
unte
r30
932
033
089
9411
0P
P60
62 P
P11
1850
1900
2300
309
320
330
298
310
373
-2.2
0.5
1.7
3,40
052
Snow
y R
iver
+u30
6+us
age3
16+u
sage
422+
usag
e14
914
0P
P56
107
O
2500
2500
2500
341
525
540
412
383
3.8
3.1
3,30
051
Forb
es45
647
248
881
110
133
O
O
P
P9
650
650
650
456
472
488
384
378
402
7.7
5.4
3.7
3,20
050
Coo
ma-
Mon
aro
453
485
509
178
233
257
PP
P
P19
1870
1910
1910
453
485
509
424
445
482
0.5
0.2
0.0
3,20
053
Ber
rigan
290
310
320
110
132
138
PP
1517
0017
0029
031
032
031
131
331
9-0
.4-0
.8-0
.33,
000
LWU
s with
1,5
01 -
3,00
0 Pr
oper
ties
48Le
eton
8412
517
076
7574
OO
P
P41
3100
3150
3200
8412
517
040
749
250
39.
74.
71.
93,
000
54D
enili
quin
418
439
461
8210
512
0P
PO
2360
060
060
041
843
946
138
340
442
70.
00.
81.
92,
900
47B
ellin
gen
438
438
453
137
133
120
PP
102
105
P
P12
3810
3700
3800
438
438
453
409
422
419
0.1
-0.3
-0.7
2,90
060
Gle
n In
nes S
ever
n27
526
035
010
874
PP
O
1860
275
260
350
288
302
4.2
5.0
2,80
058
Coo
tam
undr
a17
320
823
342
6872
O
OO
O
170
070
070
017
320
823
319
520
625
7-5
.3-8
.8-3
.62,
600
57W
ellin
gton
430
450
475
118
138
148
OP
90O
1218
5019
1019
1043
045
047
543
546
946
33.
95.
44.
82,
500
91C
abon
ne53
957
746
015
312
112
4O
P11
8O
P10
539
577
460
441
455
485
2.4
3.8
7.0
2,30
080
Gre
ater
Hum
e23
624
524
513
710
410
5O
OO
O
2930
2930
5500
236
245
245
259
263
290
-0.3
-0.1
-0.1
2,20
059
Lach
lan
300
300
310
5365
80P
PO
O
1915
300
300
310
270
270
268
1.0
0.3
2.4
2,20
065
Mur
ray
318
318
318
8375
84P
P P
P24
700
700
700
318
318
318
365
399
361
1.9
2.9
2.8
2,10
062
Nar
rom
ine
417
440
460
171
PP
P7
940
940
940
417
440
460
410
408
433
-1.7
-0.8
-0.7
2,10
056
Yas
s Val
ley
355
370
475
133
113
144
PP
O
O
125
0040
6041
6035
537
047
538
843
346
26.
711
.510
.22,
000
61Li
verp
ool P
lain
s28
929
929
276
8898
PP
P
P11
600
610
610
289
299
292
321
321
291
0.4
0.8
-1.4
1,90
055
War
rum
bung
le33
034
534
211
212
492
PP
O
O
550
685
685
330
345
342
338
344
321
0.9
-1.0
-2.4
1,90
069
Tem
ora
156
170
187
6286
93P
PO
O
515
015
617
018
711
913
114
2-2
.7-0
.2-1
.11,
900
71Pa
lera
ng58
559
569
217
317
3P
PO
O
2200
2320
3600
585
595
692
440
450
2.0
2.1
1,80
072
Bla
nd36
137
339
210
714
815
8O
OO
O
2210
0010
0010
0036
137
339
238
241
437
00.
30.
71.
01,
700
63N
arra
nder
a33
035
037
570
9210
2O
OO
1912
330
350
375
395
454
450
1.8
1.8
5.7
1,70
067
Cob
ar19
222
523
036
7783
PP
O
O
770
770
770
192
225
230
187
184
221
-2.4
-0.2
-4.6
1,60
074
Wen
twor
th35
037
040
075
6871
PP
O
822
0022
0027
0035
037
040
034
839
639
40.
50.
7-0
.61,
600
75C
oona
mbl
e24
424
429
584
8192
O
P70
O
924
424
429
528
229
223
5-3
.4-3
.5-5
.21,
600
LWU
s with
200
- 1,
500
Prop
ertie
s70
Kyo
gle
+u41
247
449
023
525
315
3P
P82
85 P
P8
1000
1000
1000
412
474
490
342
368
434
-1.6
-1.3
-0.2
1,50
077
June
e28
328
329
311
813
812
7P
P P
P18
550
550
550
283
283
293
272
289
294
2.2
0.2
1.3
1,50
078
Bla
yney
396
410
440
123
169
148
PP
50 P
P14
1511
5019
3020
0039
641
044
045
646
749
54.
43.
63.
31,
500
79W
alge
tt27
427
428
554
58P
PO
O
827
427
428
534
036
136
4-2
.7-2
.7-1
.71,
400
68Te
nter
field
312
325
350
182
182
205
PP
O
P21
1500
1500
1500
312
325
350
331
346
365
-2.2
1.9
-3.7
1,40
084
Gilg
andr
a25
629
534
569
6175
PP
3035
P
P15
1225
629
534
518
023
024
3-4
.0-0
.9-1
.31,
300
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
62
App
endi
x F
- Sew
erag
e - R
esid
entia
l Cha
rges
, Bill
s, C
ost R
ecov
ery
Non
-Res
&
Tra
de W
aste
C
harg
es
Non
-Res
&
Tra
de W
aste
V
olum
e
(% o
f Ann
ual
rate
s & C
harg
es)
(% o
f Sew
age
Col
lect
ed)
(5)
(6)
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
02/0
303
/04
04/0
504
/05
05/0
604
/05
05/0
620
04/0
520
05/0
620
04/0
520
04/0
503
/04
04/0
505
/06
03/0
404
/05
05/0
602
/03
03/0
404
/05
02/0
303
/04
04/0
504
/05
WA
TE
R U
TIL
ITY
Doe
s Cou
ncil
Hav
e L
iqui
d T
rade
W
aste
Fee
s and
C
harg
es*
?
(4)
Typ
ical
Dev
elop
er
Cha
rge
($/E
quiv
alen
t Ten
emen
t [ET
])
(7)
(%)
Yes
/No
Ope
ratin
g C
ost (
OM
A)
(c/k
L)
(2)
Acc
ess C
harg
e In
depe
nden
t of
Lan
d V
alue
?
(3)
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(8)
(3a)
Non
-res
iden
tial
Sew
er U
sage
C
harg
e(N
ot in
cl S
DF)
c/kL
CO
ST R
EC
OV
ER
Y
(11)
Typ
ical
Res
iden
tial B
illE
cono
mic
Rea
l Rat
e of
R
etur
nC
onne
cted
Prop
ertie
s
(No.
)
(12)
($)
(1)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L C
HA
RG
ES/
OM
A
Ave
rage
Res
iden
tial B
ill
($/a
sses
smen
t)
(9)
RE
SID
EN
TIA
L B
ILL
S
Acc
ess C
harg
e (o
r M
inim
um)
73U
pper
Lac
hlan
441
469
500
156
169
132
OP
92 P
P2
1759
090
015
0044
146
950
041
643
343
10.
00.
60.
31,
300
82G
louc
este
r37
032
532
513
917
620
8P
P10
0 P
P11
1770
5550
5750
370
325
325
352
371
337
5.1
0.9
12.2
1,30
087
Bou
rke
449
459
475
7720
311
2P
PO
P8
460
460
460
449
459
475
517
501
533
-1.5
-10.
4-1
.11,
300
86H
ay35
436
337
682
8512
0P
P50
O
1335
436
337
635
536
636
6-2
.1-1
.2-1
.81,
300
83O
bero
n26
927
824
912
512
411
3O
P37
P
P26
1200
1270
1305
269
278
249
274
271
281
-3.2
-2.0
0.7
1,20
081
Gw
ydir
344
393
458
2944
PP
240
P
P34
439
345
826
527
5-4
.6-5
.31,
100
64D
ungo
g34
236
037
892
121
105
PP
O
P15
2870
2870
2950
342
360
378
400
421
443
5.7
12.8
10.3
1,00
085
Ura
lla41
240
041
018
116
719
2P
P10
010
0 P
P14
340
412
400
410
394
394
403
-1.8
0.0
0.7
1,00
095
Wed
din
152
157
162
7561
84P
PO
O
815
215
716
212
211
712
6-1
3.8
-12.
54.
21,
000
89B
ogan
358
370
370
4066
68O
PO
O
435
837
037
041
743
245
04.
34.
93.
998
076
Har
den
301
331
363
110
110
150
PP
O
O
730
133
136
326
028
731
2-7
.0-1
.8-1
2.0
960
88W
akoo
l41
042
042
019
034
2P
PO
O
2441
042
042
043
844
845
43.
21.
62.
796
093
Tum
baru
mba
342
354
354
8269
84P
P75
O
O
1542
043
043
034
235
435
430
531
234
9-5
.4-4
.02.
291
094
Gun
daga
i22
719
520
519
719
4P
95 P
P32
227
195
205
210
270
166
-0.3
0.5
-1.2
870
92C
arra
thoo
l15
120
020
713
016
386
PP
O
536
550
570
151
200
207
129
143
143
12.5
-5.0
-1.7
840
96W
arre
n46
546
546
583
100
120
PP
P
P21
465
465
465
454
480
482
3.8
4.7
3.6
810
99C
oola
mon
240
240
240
6119
015
2P
PO
O
1824
024
024
028
430
030
00.
82.
311
.381
010
2Lo
ckha
rt12
112
533
711
510
791
OP
147
O
O
1510
0012
112
533
736
437
035
60.
10.
2-0
.277
098
Wal
cha
267
292
335
120
8198
PP
80O
P26
729
233
524
625
326
7-3
.3-3
.1-2
.676
010
0B
alra
nald
325
325
336
3249
46P
P14
O
O
1368
068
068
032
532
533
640
440
939
61.
00.
50.
576
097
Bom
bala
345
357
390
8474
89O
P14
O
P18
515
3016
4017
1034
535
739
041
042
442
63.
04.
94.
775
010
1M
urru
mbi
dgee
346
346
346
123
5859
OO
O
O
610
0010
0010
0034
634
634
626
526
025
72.
73.
23.
172
090
Guy
ra50
050
050
075
140
117
PP
O
O
1750
050
050
051
951
752
41.
81.
21.
170
010
4B
ooro
wa
187
212
247
7810
412
0P
PO
O
450
050
050
018
721
224
715
417
820
3-2
.4-1
.4-1
.253
010
5B
rew
arrin
a38
341
444
785
104
90O
OO
O
2238
341
444
733
336
144
8-0
.5-3
.7-1
.246
010
6Je
rilde
rie47
552
052
012
511
814
3O
P55
O
265
090
090
047
547
852
025
726
931
45.
67.
16.
642
010
3C
entra
l Dar
ling
390
350
300
7544
88P
PO
400
400
400
390
350
300
292
289
372
-0.4
-0.2
-1.5
340
107
Ura
na18
018
919
576
93P
PO
4100
4100
4100
180
189
195
460
460
455
1.0
0.0
0.3
300
NO
TE
: Bill
s and
Cha
rges
are
in D
olla
rs o
f the
Yea
r 20
05
Upd
ated
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
63
APPENDIX G – DEFINITIONS
64
INDICATOR DEFINITION
UTILITY CHARACTERISTIC Connected Property A property that is connected to the system.
Excludes properties that are not connected (eg. vacant lots). Includes connected non-rateable properties and non-metered properties. For multiple dwellings served by the utility (eg. a block of flats or units), each dwelling served (ie. flat or unit) is a connected property.
Employees The number of employees is the number of full time equivalent employees (FTE) per 1000 connected properties.
FTE:Full time equivalent employees including equivalent contractor staff.
SOCIAL Compliance with
microbiological water quality (%)
Number of samples tested which complied with the relevant guidelines, divided by the total number of samples taken for that parameter, expressed as a %. This is the number of samples, not tests (more than one test may be performed on a sample). Excludes samples taken for operational monitoring.
Customer interruption frequency
The total number of properties affected by unplanned interruptions to service for the reporting period divided by the number of connected properties. Includes: each occurrence of unplanned interruptions to supply. Excludes: reduced levels of service, breaks in house connection branches or planned interruptions.
Interruption:Where the property is without a service due to any cause.
Unplanned Interruption:An interruption caused by a fault in the utility's system.
Planned Interruption:An interruption for which the utility has provided at least 2 days' advanced notification.
Main breaks The total number of water main breaks, bursts and leaks in all diameter mains per 100km of main (including trunk and reticulation). Exclude: Breaks in the service connection (ie. mains to meter connection); and weeps or seepages associated with above ground mains, including those that can be fixed without shutting down the main.
Break, burst or Leak:An unplanned event in which water is lost due to failure of a pipe, hydrant, valve, fitting or joint material (excluding the main to meter connection) regardless of cause.
Odour complaints The number of odour complaints received concerning odours emanating from the utility's system. Include complaints received, even where it is believed that the odour was attributable to another source.
Residential revenue from usage charges
The revenue from residential usage charges as a percentage of the residential revenue from usage and access charges.
Service complaints The total number of service complaints received relating to service quality and reliability. Does not include odour complaints.
Complaint:A complaint is a written or verbal expression of dissatisfaction about an action, proposed action or failure to act by the utility. Includes: complaints concerning sewer blockages and spills (this is not counted as a complaint unless the customer expresses dissatisfaction about the interruption). Excludes: complaints about trade waste services, affordability, billings, odours.
APPENDIX G – DEFINITIONS
65
Typical residential bill The typical residential bill is the annual bill paid by a residential customer using the utility's average annual residential potable water consumption. The typical residential bill is the principal indicator of the overall cost of a water supply or sewerage system.
Water quality complaints (per 1000 properties)
Number of water quality complaints received by the utility by person, mail, fax, phone or email that are attributed to the utility's assets. Complaints from separate customers arising from the same cause count as separate complaints.
Complaint: A complaint is a written or verbal expression of dissatisfaction about an action, proposed action or failure to act by the water business. Includes: discolouration, taste, odour, stained washing, illness etc.. Excludes: service interruption, supply adequacy, pressure restriction etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL Average annual residential
water consumption (kL/property)
Metered or estimated residential water consumption divided by the number of connected residential properties.
Biosolids reuse (%) Biosolids (tonnes of dry solids) that is beneficially used as an input for some other process (eg. production of energy, or as a plant nutrient supplement or soil amendment) expressed as % of total biosolids produced (may exceed 100% eg. Where biosolids produced in previous years are reused in the current financial year).
Compliance with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in licence (%)
Number of samples tested which complied with the relevant licence standard for BOD divided by the total number of samples tested for compliance, expressed as a percent.
Compliance with suspended solids (SS) in licence (%)
Number of samples tested which complied with the relevant licence standard for SS divided by the total number of samples tested for compliance, expressed as a percent.
Sewer main breaks and chokes
A choke is a partial or total blockage in a trunk or reticulation main (not a house connection branch) which causes an interruption to service and/or a spill. A break is an unplanned event in which sewage is lost due to failure of a pipe, fitting or joint material (excluding the house connection branch).
Sewer overflows to the environment
The total number of sewage overflows from the sewerage system including overflows from designed overflow points operating during wet weather or other "flood" conditions.
Overflow:An overflow is when untreated wastewater spills or discharges and escapes from the wastewater system (ie. pumping stations, pipes, maintenance holes or designed overflow structures) to the external environment. Excludes spills from emergency relief structures that escape to designed storages and overflows caused by a blockage in the house branch connection sewer.
Recycled water (% of effluent recycled)
Recycled water is the volume of treated sewage effluent reused. It includes internal recycling within treatment works but excludes evaporation. The percentage of recycling is calculated as the volume recycled divided by the total volume of effluent produced.
APPENDIX G – DEFINITIONS
66
ECONOMIC
Debt to equity (%) Debt:Repayable borrowings (interest and non-interest bearing); interest bearing non-repayable borrowings; redeemable preference shares; and financial leases. Exclude creditors or provisions, but offsetting assets, such as contributions to sinking funds should not be deducted.
Equity:Total assets less total liabilities. The classification of non-repayable, non-interest bearing borrowings from governments is the same as the treatment of them in the audited accounts.
Economic real rate of return (%)
Revenue from operations less operating expenses (OMA + current cost depreciation) divided by written down replacement value of operational assets. Revenue from operations excludes interest income, grants for acquisition of assets and gain/loss on disposal of assets.
Operating cost (OMA) Operating Cost: Total operation, maintenance and administration (OMA) costs.
Turnover Turnover is the total revenue from operations less grants for acquisition of assets. Includes revenue from pay for use and access charges for provision of water and sewerage services, special levies, revenue from asset sales, receipts from governments for specific agreed services (eg. CSOs), all developer cash contributions and assets and other revenue from operations which would otherwise be included.
Excludes all non-core business revenues, funds from governments for acquisition of capital works, equity contributions from governments and any abnormal revenue.
BLANK PAGE
