Paterson District Sewerage Community Meeting 15th September 2005

1
Paterson District SewerageCommunity
Meeting15th September 2005
2
Where are we at ?

• On site systems failing
• First options report prepared for Council in 1999
• Report reviewed and updated in December 2004 to
  include new technologies

3
Options for Sewerage covered in report

• Conventional Gravity System (CGS)
• Common Effluent Drainage System (CED)
• Modified Gravity Sewerage System (MGS)
• Low Pressure Sewerage (LP)

4
Conventional Gravity Scheme

• Most common scheme
• Collection of underground pipes and manholes
  linking to pump stations and treatment plant
• Removes solid and liquid waste from property
• Can be expensive for small communities

5
Conventional Gravity Scheme
6
Conventional Gravity Scheme

• ADVANTAGES
• No / Low maintenance
• No liquid accumulation in property
• DISADVANTAGES
• Higher cost than other options
• Prone to stormwater infiltration
• Construction can be disruptive to residents

7
Common Effluent Drainage Scheme

• Maintains septic tank to collect solids
• Effluent is drained or pumped to pipe network to
  treatment plant
• Uses smaller pipes and flatter grades
• Can be less expensive for small communities

8
Common Effluent Drainage Scheme
9
Common Effluent Drainage Scheme

• ADVANTAGES
• Addresses the health issues related to failing
  septics
• Can be a cheaper option to install
• DISADVANTAGES
• All properties require septic tank to remain
• Odour can still occur at tank
• Desludging is still required to remove solids
  from tank
• Individual households incur additional operation
  and maintenance cost
• Can not be converted to gravity system at a later
  date

10
Modified Gravity Drainage Scheme

• Similar to Conventional gravity with
  modifications to achieve cost savings
• Favoured system with DEUS
• Been developed for smaller communities
• Should be less expensive than Conventional system

11
Modified Gravity Drainage Scheme
12
Modified Gravity Drainage Scheme

• ADVANTAGES
• Has all the benefits of a conventional system
• Can be a cheaper option to install than
  conventional
• DISADVANTAGES
• May result in decrease in level of service
  (higher blockages possible)
• Possible overflows in wet weather

13
Low Pressure Scheme

• Utilises grinder pumps at each property
• Reasonably new technology
• Benefits obtained when topography makes gravity
  schemes difficult
• Smaller pipelines and less excavation

14
Low Pressure Scheme
15
Low Pressure Scheme

• ADVANTAGES
• Smaller pipe size and depths
• Reduced excavation
• Stormwater infiltration reduced significantly
• No manholes required
• May not need additional boost pump stations
• DISADVANTAGES
• Each residence may require individual pump
• Operation and maintenance cost to be borne by
  resident
• Power outage will disrupt the service with
  limited storage available in each unit

16
Options in report
17
Options in report
18
Option Costs
19
Funding availability

• In 1994 NSW State Government agreed to fund the
  Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage (CTWSS)
  program at the rate of 85 million per year for
  10 years
• State Government would provide up to 50 of funds
  for eligible schemes on a priority basis and
  higher for small towns
• In the years 1994/95 to 2003/04 annual
  expenditure has averaged 52.5 million
• In 2003 the Minister halted all funding and
  reviewed the program. Changes to the program
  resulted in reduced funding to Councils.
• This scheme is on the funding list but does not
  have high enough priority to secure funds at this
  stage
• Council has the opportunity annually to request
  that the priorities be redetermined
• Unlikely that funding will become available as
  there are at present approximately 200 unfunded
  projects throughout the state
• All NSW Water Utilities (Councils) have been
  encouraged by the NSW Water Directorate to lobby
  the State Government to realistically reassess
  the funding allocations

20
Cost to residents
21
QuestionsWhere to now?
?