ISSN 2206-1991

Volume 5 No 4 2020
https://doi.org/10.21139/wej.2020.024

Australian exemplars of sustainable

and economic managed aquifer
recharge
Ensuring water security and resilience for the future

J Vanderzalm, B Naumann, S Higginson, D Page, A Jones, V Moscovis, S Hamilton, D Gonzalez, G Dandy, K Barry, P Dillon, H Prommer, M Donn

The initiating organisations understood the importance of

ABSTRACT research and investigation, in addition to risk-based
Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) can improve water monitoring and management. These helped to ensure health
security by using aquifers to store water when it is abundant and environmental protection, underpinning these
until required for future use and can increase the use of developments.
urban stormwater and treated wastewater to reduce the Keywords: Groundwater replenishment, ASR, ASTR,
demand on traditional surface water and groundwater recycled water, stormwater
supplies.

Recently, two Australian examples were showcased

internationally as sustainable and economic MAR: Perth’s
groundwater replenishment scheme (GWRS) with recycled
INTRODUCTION
water to increase security of urban water supply and a multi- Managed aquifer recharge (MAR), or intentional
site urban stormwater MAR scheme for suburban non- groundwater replenishment, is a means of improving water
potable water supply in Salisbury, Adelaide. This paper security by using aquifers to store water when it is abundant
provides a synopsis of these Australian exemplars of until required for use. When coupled with water recycling,
sustainable and economic MAR. MAR can increase the use of urban stormwater and treated
wastewater to reduce the demand on traditional surface
Novel environmental and social sustainability indicators
water supplies, or to augment groundwater supplies.
highlighted the importance of implementation in accordance
with the Australian MAR Guidelines. Both Australian Since the 1960s, there has been considerable growth in
examples were deemed to be at a good standard for MAR to now recharge approximately 10,000 GL/year
sustainability due to compliance with this rigorous risk-based globally. Despite this growth, MAR or groundwater
guidance for protecting health and environment. replenishment equates to only an approximate 2.4% of
groundwater use in the countries that practice MAR (Dillon
Perth’s GWRS reported a levelised cost of AU$1.74/kL
et al., 2019). In Australia, MAR of approximately 410
(US$1.29/kL at 2016 costs) and a benefit cost ratio of 1.5,
GL/year represents 8.3% of groundwater use.
as the cost of groundwater replenishment is lower than that
for an additional seawater desalination plant of the same In addition to storage of available surface water and
capacity. Public open space irrigation using stormwater groundwater, Australia has experience in harvesting urban
MAR at Salisbury had a levelised cost of AU$1.32/kL stormwater, recycled water, and pumped mine or coal seam
(US$0.98/kL at 2016 costs) and a benefit cost ratio of 2.5 gas water, for use or to provide environmental benefit (i.e.
when compared to the lowest cost alternative (irrigation with sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems) (Figure 1).
mains drinking water supply).

1
1
 A growth rate in MAR in Australia (3.6%/year) slightly below sustainability based on a suite of sustainability indicators
the global average (4.9%/year), coupled with recharge of addressing environmental and social sustainability. These
less than 10% of groundwater use suggests there is indicators were developed due to the absence of suitable
potential to increase the use of MAR to replenish over- indicators for application to MAR, and addressed resource
exploited groundwater systems, in conjunction with demand integrity, impacts on ecosystem services, energy intensity,
management. Longer-term water banking for drought or regulatory frameworks and public consultation (Zheng et al.,
emergency response is an emerging application of MAR, in press).
which has considerable potential within Australia (Dillon,
In Western Australia, Perth’s GWRS with recycled water to
2015; Funnell, 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2020).
increase the security of urban water supply as well as in
Water banking has been successful in the USA, where a South Australia, the City of Salisbury’s multi-site urban
scheme in California accumulated 1,100 GL over 20 years stormwater MAR, which supports suburban non-potable
which was used for water supply during significant drought water supply, are documented examples. In Australia,
(Gonzalez et al., 2020). While MAR in Australia has largely stormwater drainage systems are separate from sewerage
focused on short-term seasonal water supply, a recent systems which means that treated wastewater and urban
evaluation of water banking potential in Australia’s Murry- stormwater can both be a source of water for MAR.
Darling Basin reported the capacity to bank multiple years of
These case studies serve to build confidence in MAR by
irrigation supply (Gonzalez et al., 2020).
using alternative water supplies for both potable and non-
Barriers to the uptake of MAR include uncertainty related to potable end uses. The success of both MAR operations is
technical feasibility in various hydrogeological settings, underpinned by investment in research and investigations,
economic viability, and compatibility with water resource along with risk-based monitoring and management to ensure
management policies. Measures to address this uncertainty health and environmental protection. This paper provides a
and support further growth in MAR include documentation of synopsis of these Australian exemplars of sustainable and
exemplary case studies, guidelines for development and economic MAR.
operation of MAR schemes which provide guidance for
health and environmental protection and increased
knowledge of the costs and benefits of MAR operations
(Dillon et al., 2019).

Currently, Australia is the only nation to adopt guidelines for

risk-based management of MAR to provide protection of
human health and the environment. These are the
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managed Aquifer
Recharge (“MAR Guidelines”) (NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC,
2009). The MAR Guidelines can be applied to any source of
water for recharge, any aquifer type, any recharge method
and any end-use of the stored water, while addressing
management of water quantity and quality. The MAR
Guidelines are underpinned by pragmatic scientific
understanding, which has been gained through decades of
research and investigations that accompanied the
development of Australia’s MAR capacity.

Recently two Australian MAR operations (Higginson et al., in

press; Naumann et al., in press) were included as part of 28
examples of MAR encompassing applications from a village
to state level (Zheng et al., in press). These examples assist
with overcoming impediments to MAR by including practical
experience from conception to realisation, benefit cost
assessment (Ross, in press), and a novel assessment of

2
 Figure 1. An overview of Australia’s extensive capacity for MAR using surface water, urban stormwater, recycled
(reclaimed) water and groundwater (including pumped mine and coal seam gas water) (modified after Dillon et al., 2009).

3
 Perth’s groundwater replenishment with
METHODOLOGY recycled water
MAR refers to the intentional recharge of water to aquifers
Perth’s GWRS is an essential component of Water
for subsequent recovery or environmental benefit (NRMMC-
Corporation’s strategy to improve long-term water security
EPHC-NHMRC, 2009a). This paper presents examples of
for the city. Advanced treated wastewater is recharged to
well injection techniques for MAR targeting confined
confined sandstone aquifers via wells for later use as a
aquifers, including aquifer storage and recovery (ASR),
drinking water source. With separate recharge and
which uses a single well for recharge and recovery; and
extraction bores, the GWRS is an example of water banking
aquifer storage transfer and recovery (ASTR), which uses
via ASTR with anticipated decades of residence time in the
separate wells for injection and recovery.
aquifer prior to recovery for use. Recovered groundwater is
Operators of Australian MAR, including Western Australia’s treated prior to use via the Perth Integrated Water Supply
Water Corporation, and South Australia’s Salisbury Water, a Scheme. This groundwater treatment includes aeration,
business unit of the City of Salisbury in Adelaide, shared water softening, pH adjustment, filtration, chlorination and
their experience with treated wastewater and stormwater fluoridation. The MAR operation provides a safe, climate-
MAR (Table 1). Documentation of MAR exemplars included independent drinking water source for Perth.
a detailed description of the scheme, motivation and history
The GWRS has a capacity of 28 GL/year, with Stage 1
of development, the approval process, and costs and
commencing recharge in 2017 (14 GL/year) and Stage 2
benefits.
commencing in 2020 (additional 14 GL/year). Secondary
Nine sustainability indicators were developed to assess treated wastewater undergoes advanced treatment by ultra-
environmental (n=6) and social (n=3) sustainability due to filtration, reverse osmosis and UV disinfection prior to
the absence of existing indicators for application to MAR recharge (Figure 2). Stage 1 consists of four recharge bores
(Zheng et al., in press). The environmental indicators and four monitoring bores up to 745 m below ground level.
addressed resource integrity with respect to water quantity Stage 2 duplicates the advanced water treatment capacity,
and quality (n=4), impacts on ecosystem services (n=1), and adding four recharge and four monitoring bores up to 1400
energy requirements as the key stressor (n=1). The social m below ground level, and a 13 km pipeline to deliver
sustainability indicators were based on regulatory recycled water to the recharge bores.
arrangements to protect resource security and human health
Groundwater replenishment with recycled water is
(n=2), and institutional arrangements for public and
considered to have the potential to provide up to 20% (115
stakeholder consultation (n=1).
GL/year) of Perth’s projected water supply portfolio (550
The economic assessment was based on levelised cost and GL/year) by 2060 (Water Corporation, 2009; Water Source,
benefit cost ratio of MAR scheme development in relation to 2018).
the next best alternative source of water. To allow for
comparison, all costs were standardised to 2016 values.
Levelised cost per kilolitre was calculated using a present-
value analysis and determined from the constant level of
revenue necessary each year to recover all the capital,
operating and maintenance expenses over the life of the
project, divided by the annual volume of water supply
provided by the MAR scheme. Benefits assessed included
the avoided cost of the cheapest alternative water supply
option. Social and environmental benefits were not
assessed for the MAR examples, however had previously
been reported for the Salisbury scheme (Dandy et al., 2013;
Dandy et al., 2019).

4
 a)

b)

Figure 2. a) Aerial view of advanced water recycling plant supplying source water for Perth’s GWRS and b) Schematic of
the GWRS (Source: Water Corporation).

5
 harvesting catchments or ‘hubs’ where stormwater is treated
Salisbury’s multi-site urban stormwater MAR via constructed wetlands (e.g. Figure 3), 31 ASR wells, four
Salisbury Water uses ASR and ASTR to store wetland injection only wells, 28 extraction only wells and 150 km
treated urban stormwater in confined limestone aquifers and ‘purple pipe’ reticulation network. On average 3.5 GL/year is
provides a sustainable water supply that is distributed to recharged, which is approximately 20% of the average
customers via a dedicated non-potable ‘purple pipe’ annual run-off in the City of Salisbury and 2.5 GL/year is
network. The distributed water is delivered at a standard ‘fit extracted.
for dual reticulation for indoor and outdoor use’ (NRMMC- MAR targets Tertiary aquifers (T1 and T2) of the Port
EPHC-NHMRC, 2009b). The MAR operation provides a Willunga Formation, consisting of upper (T1) and lower (T2)
reliable ‘fit for purpose water supply’ using large scale cost- sandy limestone aquifers separated by a 5-10 m thick
effective storage to make effective use of seasonally confining layer of Munno Para Clay (Naumann et al. 2020).
available urban stormwater. While intended for seasonal water supply, the MAR network
The non-potable water distribution network operated by also has the capacity for some longer-term storage to buffer
Salisbury Water is comprised of nine urban stormwater climate variability

a) b)

Figure 3. Salisbury’s a) Greenfields stormwater harvesting wetland and b) Parafield ASR well (Source: City of Salisbury).

6
 Table 1. Description of Perth groundwater replenishment and Salisbury stormwater MAR schemes.

Perth Groundwater Replenishment Salisbury Stormwater MAR

Location Perth, Western Australia Adelaide, South Australia

Operator Water Corporation Salisbury Water

Type of MAR Well recharge (aquifer storage transfer Aquifer storage and recovery (31 ASR
and recovery, ASTR) wells) & aquifer storage transfer and
recovery (ASTR via 4 injection and 28
recovery wells)

Individual stormwater hubs connected by

150 km non-potable ‘purple pipe’ network

Source of water Advanced treated wastewater Constructed wetland treated stormwater

Aquifer Confined sandstone (Leederville, Confined limestone (T1, T2)

Yarragadee)

Quantity of water harvested Trial: 2.5 GL (Nov 2010 - Dec 2012) 3.5 GL/year (mean) harvested, which is
/ abstracted 20% of average annual run-off
Stage 1: 14 GL/year
2.5 GL/year (mean) abstracted
Stage 2: addition of 14 GL/year to
provide a total capacity of 28 GL/year

Commencement Trial: 2010 - 2012 Trial: 1994, water supply (parks and
industrial use) from first hub commenced
Stage 1: 2017
in 1996
Stage 2: 2020
Sale of water supply commenced in 2004

Independent hubs connected by

reticulation network from 2001, with
significant upgrades completed between
2012-2016

End-use of abstracted Potable water supply Domestic non-potable and industrial

water supply

7
 Salisbury’s first ASR trial commenced in 1994 at one of the
MOTIVATION AND SCHEME current harvesting hubs (Paddocks ASR, capacity 0.05
DEVELOPMENT GL/year) and triggered incremental development of the
stormwater MAR network in parallel with subdivision for
Perth’s GWRS and Salisbury’s stormwater MAR scheme housing over multiple decades to include several hubs, a
provide improved water security for potable and non-potable distribution network, and an expanded customer base
water supply, respectively. In Perth, motivation for MAR (Naumann et al., in press; Radcliffe et al., 2017). Sale of
came from the understanding that traditional water water commenced in 2004. Funding from the Australian
resources from groundwater and surface water may not be Government through the Water Smart Australia program
able to meet future demands due to climate variability and was also integral in the development of Salisbury’s
growth in demand. In Salisbury, the initial and ongoing driver stormwater MAR network.
for urban water management is for drainage and flood
Research partnerships over two decades have addressed
mitigation to protect property.
multiple facets of scheme development which underpin
Over time, provision of drainage provided a pathway to MAR these examples of successful MAR operation in Australia.
development to affordably sustain urban amenity. Salisbury For example, targeted investigations have addressed aquifer
implemented stormwater treatment via 70+ constructed characterisation and migration of the injected plume
wetlands and bio-filters to manage the environmental impact (Miotlinski et al., 2014; Seibert et al., 2014); the extent of
of stormwater discharge on the receiving marine mixing and its impact on recovery efficiency (Miotlinski et al.,
environment, whilst also improving public amenity. The next 2014); source water quality (Page et al., 2013a; Page et al.,
step was to harvest this alternative water resource using 2016) and reliability (Clark et al., 2015); geochemical
large scale cost-effective MAR storage for non-potable water processes and their impact on water quality (Descourvieres
supply and reduce the financial burden of irrigating public et al., 2010; Ginige et al., 2013; Page et al., 2017; Seibert et
open space with mains water. al., 2016) including natural treatment of pathogens
(Sasidharan et al., 2017), organic chemicals (Alotaibi et al.,
Investigations and collaboration between private industry,
2015; Patterson et al., 2012) and nutrients (Vanderzalm et
government, and research organisations were integral to the
al., 2018), and the potential for mobilisation of geogenic
development of both schemes. As the first groundwater
species (Schafer et al., 2018; Schafer et al., 2020);
replenishment scheme using recycled water to augment
operational trigger values for use in risk management
drinking water supply in Australia, extensive investigation
(Gonzalez et al., 2015); the potential for biofilm and
(2007-2010) was undertaken in Perth (e.g. Descourvieres et
sediment formation in pipe material receiving stormwater
al., 2010) prior to conducting a trial (2010-2012). This was to
(Gonzalez et al., 2016); and economics (Dandy et al., 2013;
demonstrate the technical, social, and regulatory
Dandy et al., 2019; Dillon et al., 2014b; Gao et al., 2014).
requirements for implementation and ongoing operation
(Water Corporation, 2013). Research at Salisbury has considered the potential to further
expand the customer base for this resource through
In developing the GWRS, Water Corporation were able to
domestic non-potable and potable use (Dillon et al., 2014a;
learn from the documented experience of others; including
2014b). Potable water use was found to be both technically
Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment
and economically feasible but has not been adopted to date
Scheme (>96 GL/year) (CDM Smith, 2017); and, South
at Salisbury due to institutional complications. In Perth, this
Australia’s recycled water ASR trial (Dillon et al., 2006).
was not an issue as MAR was undertaken by the public
Open communication and engagement activities were
water supplier, Water Corporation.
integral to building community and regulatory acceptance of
groundwater replenishment (Bettini and Head, 2016).
Operation of Perth’s GWRS commenced in 2017 with a
doubling of capacity in 2020. Funding from the Australian
Government supported the development of the
replenishment scheme. The trial was supported by the
Australian Government’s Water for the Future initiative
through the Water Smart Australia program (DAWE, 2020).

8
 absence of any control or preventative measures (e.g.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND untreated wastewater).
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY In the next stage, a residual risk assessment includes
controls or preventative measures to ensure an acceptable
Perth’s GWRS and Salisbury’s stormwater MAR scheme
risk level to health and environmental endpoints is reached.
performed well against the newly developed sustainability
Table 2 and Table 3 summarise results of these
indicators, with both schemes receiving a good sustainability
assessments for the two case studies, adopting the format
rating (Zheng et al., in press). The GWRS was ranked
first applied by Page et al. (2010a). Examples of controls to
positively for all environmental indicators, with strengths in
ensure adequate risk management for each of the twelve
improving the resource integrity through water banking and
hazard categories are provided in Table 4 for both cases
protection of water quality. Other environmental indicators
(after Page et al., 2010b).
(e.g. ecosystem services and stressors) were rated as
enhanced.

Salisbury’s MAR network was considered to have strengths

in water quality, impacts on ecosystem services and
stressors (rated as superior), and resource integrity was
rated as improved. In this example, an environmental
sustainability goal to protect the downstream marine
ecosystem by improving stormwater quality prior to
discharge provided an important pathway for urban
stormwater to be viewed as an alternative water resource,
and not just a drainage issue.

Both Australian examples received a superior ranking for

two of the measures for social sustainability: the MAR
regulatory framework; and risk-based protection of human
health. Similarly, both schemes were given an enhanced
social sustainability rating, based on their institutional
arrangements for community engagement.

Role of risk-assessment in ensuring

environmental sustainability
The high performance in relation to environmental
sustainability is strongly driven by compliance with the
Australian MAR Guidelines (NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC,
2009a), which were the first international adoption of risk-
based guidelines for MAR (Dillon et al., 2020). The MAR
Guidelines require a comprehensive risk assessment, which
addresses 12 hazards or hazardous events to human health
or the environment.

Seven water quality hazards, which may be present in the

source water, the groundwater or be mobilised from the
aquifer, may pose a risk to human health through ingestion
or to the receiving environment (e.g. aquifer, soil, crop). Four
additional hazard categories address risks to the target
aquifer for storage and the final one addresses energy use.
A maximal risk assessment assesses these hazards in the

9
 Table 2. Risk assessment summary for Perth’s recycled water replenishment of groundwater for drinking water supplies.

Maximal risk assessment – Residual risk assessment –

untreated wastewater (pre-trial) advanced water treatment (post-trial)

MAR Hazards Endpoints Endpoints

Human: Environment: Human: Environment:

drinking water aquifer drinking water aquifer

Pathogens – pathogens present in untreated

H H L L
wastewater

Inorganic chemicals – may exceed drinking water

H H L L
targets, potential mobilisation from aquifer

Salinity and sodicity – untreated wastewater may

exceed drinking water target, groundwater salinity H H L L
meets target for beneficial use

Nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorous and organic

H H L L
carbon – wastewater is of high nutrient status

Organic chemicals – may exceed drinking water

H H L L
targets

Turbidity and particulates – high in the source water

H H L L
and may cause clogging

Radionuclides – wastewater and aquifer unlikely to

L L L L
have radioactive sources

Pressure, flow rates, volumes and groundwater

levels – unlikely based on modelling, to be U L
confirmed

Contaminant migration in fractured rock and karstic

L L
aquifers – not present

Aquifer dissolution and stability of well and aquitard

L L
– dissolution unlikely in a siliceous aquifer

Aquifer and groundwater-dependent ecosystems –

U L
impact unlikely based on modelling, to be confirmed

Energy demand and greenhouse gas generation –

L L
lower than additional seawater desalination plant

L low risk; U unknown risk; H high risk

10
 Table 3. Risk assessment summary for Salisbury’s urban stormwater MAR to produce non-potable supplies.

Maximal risk assessment – Residual risk assessment –

untreated stormwater (pre-trial) wetland treated stormwater (post-trial)

MAR Hazards Endpoints Endpoints

Human: Environment: Environment: Human: spray Environment: Environment:

spray ingestion irrigation aquifer ingestion irrigation aquifer

Pathogens – pathogens present in untreated

H L L L L L
stormwater

Inorganic chemicals – potential mobilisation of iron

and arsenic from aquifer, concentrations may H U H L L L
exceed irrigation targets

Salinity and sodicity – potential mixing with

L U L L L L
brackish groundwater if not managed appropriately

Nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorous and organic

carbon – stormwater is typically of low nutrient L L L L L L
status

Organic chemicals – none likely at concentrations

H L L L L L
above irrigation targets

Turbidity and particulates –in source water or

released from aquifer, may cause clogging of H U L L L L
irrigation infrastructure

Radionuclides – catchment and aquifer unlikely to

L L L L L L
have radioactive sources

Pressure, flow rates, volumes and groundwater

levels – unlikely based on modelling, to be U L
confirmed

Contaminant migration in fractured rock and karstic

aquifers – unlikely based on modelling, to be U L
confirmed

Aquifer dissolution and stability of well and

aquitard – instability unlikely based on experience U L
in aquifer, to be confirmed

Aquifer and groundwater-dependent ecosystems –

not within 2 km of MAR, aquifer is anoxic and L L
brackish

Energy demand and greenhouse gas generation –

lower than comparable option of pumping surface L L
water from River Murray

L low risk; U unknown risk; H high risk

11
 Table 4. Examples of controls applied to manage potential risks from key hazards in MAR schemes
(modified after Page et al., 2010b).

MAR Hazards Origin * Examples of controls for risk management

Perth GWRS Salisbury non-potable stormwater MAR

• Source water treatment (e.g. constructed wetland) to

• Source water treatment (advanced water treatment) to ensure pathogen numbers meet water quality targets for
ensure pathogen numbers meet water quality targets for aquifer† and beneficial use
Pathogens S, G
beneficial use
• Post-treatment (e.g. disinfection)
• Post-treatment (e.g. groundwater treatment plant)
• Access control (e.g. reducing access)

• Source water treatment (advanced water treatment) to • Source water treatment to ensure concentrations meet
ensure concentrations meet water quality targets water quality targets for aquifer† and beneficial use
Inorganic chemicals G, A, S • Release from aquifer unlikely to produce concentrations • Release from aquifer unlikely to produce concentrations
above target values above target values
• Post-treatment (e.g. groundwater treatment plant) • Early recovered water diverted

• RO treatment reduces salinity to meet drinking water

standard
Salinity and sodicity G, S • Low anticipated mixing in brackish aquifer
• Salinity of native groundwater meets target for beneficial
use

Nutrients S, G • Source water treatment (advanced water treatment) to • Concentrations meet environmental values of aquifer†
ensure concentrations meet water quality targets and beneficial use

Organic chemicals S, G • Source water treatment (advanced water treatment) to • Source water treatment to ensure concentrations meet
ensure concentrations meet water quality targets water quality targets for aquifer† and beneficial use

Turbidity and particulates • Source water treatment (advanced water treatment) to • Acceptance limit for turbidity in source water
S, G ensure concentrations meet water quality targets and do • Exceedances during early recovery diverted back to
not inhibit disinfection wetland

Radionuclides G, A, S • Radioactivity of native groundwater and source water • Radioactivity of native groundwater and source water
meets water quality targets meets water quality targets

• Groundwater modelling to define permissible maximum • Groundwater modelling to define permissible maximum
Pressure, flow rates, and minimum hydraulic heads and minimum hydraulic heads
S
volumes and levels • Recharge water is confined to target storage zone and • Recharge water is confined to target storage zone and
upward and downward leakage is negligible upward and downward leakage is negligible

Contaminant migration in • Secondary porosity unlikely to impact†

fractured rock and karstic S, G • Secondary porosity unlikely • Well screen completion to minimise flow through highly
aquifers transmissive zones of the aquifer (e.g. Salisbury)

Aquifer dissolution and • Geochemical modelling indicates dissolution will not

S, A • Unlikely in siliceous aquifer impact on aquitard or well stability in the operating
stability of well and aquitard
lifetime of the operation

Impacts on groundwater-
S, A • Hydraulic head variation remains within historical range • Not present within 2 km of hub
dependent ecosystems

Greenhouse gases S • Energy use is lower than alternative options • Energy use is lower than alternative options

*A=aquifer minerals; G=groundwater; S=source water for recharge; italics indicate secondary source
†
beyond attenuation zone: attenuation zone surrounds the zone of recharge and is a zone where natural attenuation takes place, environmental values of the aquifer are
met beyond the attenuation zone

12
 Extensive investigations have been undertaken to assess and a risk assessment process guided by the Australian
the feasibility of both MAR schemes and provide knowledge MAR Guidelines (NRMMC, EPHC, NHRMC, 2009). The risk
which can be applied more broadly for environmental assessment considers preventative measures and
sustainability. Extensive field, laboratory and modelling operational procedures, and verifies the scheme can be
investigations in Perth have improved the understanding of managed without compromising the environmental values of
aquifer reactivity and the potential for mobilisation of the aquifer.
geogenic species during MAR (Descourvieres et al., 2010;
Over 58,000 groundwater samples were collected during the
Schafer et al., 2018; Schafer et al., 2020; Seibert et al.,
initial trial (Water Corporation, 2013), and ongoing
2016; Sun et al., 2020), along with the fate of organic
verification monitoring and groundwater modelling (Sun et
chemicals in the aquifer (Patterson et al., 2012). Deep
al., 2020) are undertaken to ensure the groundwater quality
understanding of the processes that control arsenic mobility
meets all water quality targets for that aquifer at the
were obtained from a reactive transport model simulating the
boundary of the recharge management zone. A recharge
two-year trial period (Seibert et al., 2016; Seibert et al.,
management zone was set at 250 m around each recharge
2014).
bore, and monitoring bores are located well within this zone
Research at Salisbury has provided an understanding of the at 50 m from each recharge bore to assess compliance.
potential of urban stormwater as a drinking water supply
Stormwater MAR schemes in metropolitan Adelaide are
resource (Dillon et al., 2014a; Dillon et al., 2008; Page et al.,
authorised by the South Australian Environment Protection
2016); the reliability of urban stormwater supply under
Authority under the Environment Protection Act 1993 to
variable climate, which revealed that impervious urban areas
discharge stormwater to aquifers. Licence conditions include
are more resilient to climate change than pervious rural
recharge locations, maximum recharge volume per year,
catchments that are subject to much greater
water quality criteria for source water, contingency planning,
evapotranspiration (Clark et al., 2015); and the potential for
water quality monitoring, and reporting requirements and
natural treatment of pathogens (Page et al., 2015;
approval of a MAR Risk Management Plan developed in
Sasidharan et al., 2017), nutrients (Vanderzalm et al., 2018)
accordance with the Australian MAR Guidelines (NRMMC-
and organic chemicals (Shareef et al., 2014) in the aquifer to
EPHC-NHMRC, 2009a).
reduce the need for engineered water quality treatment.
Risk-assessment and management of Salisbury’s MAR
network includes assessment of injected stormwater and
Regulatory framework and risk management recovered water quality against relevant water quality
guideline values (Page et al., 2010a; Page et al., 2013a);
As a pioneering application of MAR for indirect potable use aquifer characterisation and solute transport modelling to
in Western Australia, an extensive trial period coupled with optimise recovery efficiency of water at suitable quality for
extensive monitoring and model validation was crucial in the intended use (Miotlinski et al., 2014); and, establishment
developing the regulatory framework for groundwater of appropriate operational trigger values (Gonzalez et al.,
replenishment with recycled water. The trial was used to 2015) for use in risk-management (Page et al., 2013b).
define the approvals pathway required to develop, approve
recharge, and regulate a groundwater replenishment
scheme.
Community engagement
This regulatory framework was developed through
collaboration between Water Corporation and the WA Recognising the importance of community engagement for
Government Department of Health, the Department of the success of indirect potable reuse, Water Corporation
Environment and Conservation, and the Department of commenced engagement with the community several years
Water (now the Department of Water and Environmental prior to the trial period (Bettini and Head, 2016). A visitor
Regulation). It defines the roles and responsibilities of each centre was launched during the trial period, which assisted
agency to ensure human and environmental health are in improving understanding and attitudes toward the
protected. It also specifies management objectives, water scheme. Surveys conducted during site tours in the trial
quality guidelines, recharge management zone (minimum period revealed that public support for the scheme increased
distance between recharge of recycled water and from 74% to 93% once the community felt better informed
abstraction of groundwater for public drinking water about inherent risks and risk-management processes (Water
supplies) beyond which environmental values are protected; Corporation, 2013).

13
 Other mechanisms for community interaction included a As stated earlier, the Australian Government provided
dedicated website which included quarterly water quality significant financial support (AU$28M), with additional
reporting to the community, social media, newspapers, support from the State government (AU$6M) and an
media releases, and presentations at community forums industrial user to develop the MAR network under initiatives
(Water Corporation, 2013). to secure urban water supply.

Salisbury Water also conducts regular technical tours for Economic cost benefit analysis was undertaken for one of
visitors and supports a wetland volunteer group in providing these stormwater harvesting hubs (the Parafield catchment)
community group tours. Focus group and web surveys have and included assessment of twelve configurations for
reported a high level of prospective public acceptance for stormwater use. Only those for public space irrigation and
stormwater use in third pipe residential and drinking water drinking water supply had positive net economic benefits.
supply (Mankad et al., 2013). Public support and trust for Residential non-potable supply (third pipe options) weren’t
stormwater use was reported as higher than for alternative favourable due to the cost of constructing an additional
water supply options of pumping from the River Murray or extensive distribution network.
seawater desalination (Dillon et al., 2014a; Mankad et al.,
Public open space irrigation using MAR had the lowest
2013). This community has experienced the social benefits
levelised cost of AU$1.32/kL (US$0.98/kL, at 2016 costs),
of stormwater harvesting and use for multiple decades.
which reflects the scheme as operated (Dandy et al., 2013;
Dandy et al., 2019). The relative cost of MAR compared to
the lowest cost alternative (using the existing mains water
Economic assessment drinking water supply for irrigation), gave a benefit cost ratio
The capital cost for Stage 1 of Perth’s GWRS was of 2.5.
approximately AU$128M, including the advanced water Levelised cost of the Australian examples of ASR and ASTR
treatment recycling plant and recharge and monitoring with urban stormwater (US$0.98/kL) and recycled
bores, which were all situated on Water Corporation wastewater (US$1.29/kL) are comparable to the average
property. Expansion in Stage 2 (2020) incorporates reported for well-injection schemes with recycled water
additional components and is approximately AU$294M, (US$1.46/kL) based on international experience (Ross and
used to fund the duplication of the existing advanced water Hasnain, 2018). It is evident that MAR at this scale is viable
treatment recycling plant, recharge bores located in comparison to other water supply options in Australia,
approximately 12 km north, a pipeline to deliver recycled such as seawater desalination (WSAA, 2020).
water to the new recharge locations, abstraction bores, and
an upgrade to the existing groundwater treatment plant.

Annual operating costs of the Stage 1 advanced water

recycling plant is approximately AU$4.2M. Economic
CONCLUSION
analysis for Perth’s GWRS reported a levelised cost of Australian experience in MAR has been highlighted by two
AU$1.74/kL (US$1.29/kL at 2016 costs) and a benefit cost examples of economic and sustainable MAR, which aim to
ratio of 1.5, as the cost of groundwater replenishment is improve knowledge transfer and build confidence to support
lower than that for an additional seawater desalination plant the growth of this water management tool. Perth’s GWRS
of the same capacity. with recycled water augments groundwater with up to 28
GL/year and Salisbury’s urban stormwater MAR network
The Salisbury stormwater MAR scheme with nine
currently supplies 2.5 GL/year of non-potable water.
stormwater harvesting hubs has grown incrementally over
Research undertaken at these sites has been integral in
two decades. The capital cost of the entire network was
establishing risk-based guidance for developing and
estimated at AU$52M and the average annual operating
managing MAR schemes in Australia.
cost at AU$3M. Council has established an internal business
unit called Salisbury Water to manage sales of all recycled Despite variability in the type of MAR and the
water to its own parks and gardens service, industrial users, hydrogeological setting, a standardised approach was
schools and other institutions, and new residential applied to economic and sustainability assessment.
subdivisions. Adopting a standardised approach such as this provides a
means to obtain broadly applicable information from vastly
different schemes. The novel development of environmental

14
 and social sustainability indicators has highlighted the
importance of a comprehensive risk-based regulatory REFERENCES
framework and community engagement. Australian Alotaibi MD, Patterson BM, McKinley AJ, Reeder AY,
examples of MAR performed well against these indicators Furness AJ and Donn MJ (2015) Fate of benzotriazole and
due to their implementation in accordance with the 5-methylbenzotriazole in recycled water recharged into an
Australian MAR Guidelines (NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC, anaerobic aquifer: Column studies. Water Research 70,
2009a). 184-195. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.11.040.
Furthermore, both Water Corporation and Salisbury Water Bettini Y and Head BW (2016) WA groundwater
have prioritised community engagement activities resulting replenishment trial: A case study of creating the enabling
in high public awareness and acceptability of their schemes. environment for regulatory change. Australia. Viewed 7/9/20,
<https://watersensitivecities.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/TMR_A3-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1_WA_GroundWaterReplenishmentTrial.pdf>.

CDM Smith (2017) US EPA 2017 potable reuse

Perth’s groundwater replenishment trial was supported by
compendium. USA. Viewed 15/12/2020,
the Australian Government’s Water for the Future initiative
<https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
through the Water Smart Australia program, and the State
01/documents/potablereusecompendium_3.pdf>.
Government of Western Australia. Research partners
include CSIRO, Curtin University, and numerous industry Clark R, Gonzalez D, Dillon P, Charles S, Cresswell D and
partners. Naumann B (2015) Reliability of water supply from
stormwater harvesting and managed aquifer recharge with a
Research support for Salisbury’s urban stormwater MAR
brackish aquifer in an urbanising catchment and changing
has been supported by numerous funding partners including
climate. Environmental Modelling & Software 72, 117-125.
the Australian Government, Goyder Institute for Water
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.07.009.
Research, Parafield Airport Limited, Michell Wool, Adelaide
and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Dandy G, Ganji A, Kandulu J, Hatton MacDonald D, Marchi
Board, the former United Water International, South A, Maier H, Mankad A and Schmidt CE (2013) Managed
Australian Water Corporation (SA Water), South Australian Aquifer Recharge and Stormwater Use Options: Net
Government (through the Department for Environment and Benefits Report. Goyder Institue for Water Research
Water), and the South Australian Environmental Protection Technical Report Series No 14/1. Goyder Institute for Water
Authority. Research Adelaide, South Australia.
<http://www.goyderinstitute.org/_r105/media/system/attrib/fil
The authors acknowledge the review comments provided by
e/96/U.2.1.%20MARSUO%20Net%20Benefits%20Report%
Dr John Radcliffe and Dr Greg Davis, of CSIRO, who
20%28T5%29_for%20RAC.pdf>.
assisted in improving the manuscript.
Dandy GC, Marchi A, Maier HR, Kandulu J, Hatton
MacDonald D and Ganji A (2019) An integrated framework
for selecting and evaluating the performance of stormwater
harvesting options to supplement existing water supply
systems. Environmental Modelling and Software 122. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104554.

DAWE (2020) Water Smart Australia. Department of

Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Australian
Government. Viewed 14/12/20.

Descourvieres C, Prommer H, Oldham C, Greskowiak J and

Hartog N (2010) Kinetic Reaction Modeling Framework for
Identifying and Quantifying Reductant Reactivity in
Heterogeneous Aquifer Sediments. Environmental Science
& Technology 44(17), 6698-6705. DOI: 10.1021/es101661u.

15
 Dillon P, Page D, Dandy G, Leonard R, Tjandraatmadja G, Funnell A (2020) How banking water underground in
Vanderzalm J, Rouse K, Barry K, Gonzalez D and Myers B aquifers could help guard Australia against future drought.
(2014a) Managed Aquifer Recharge and Urban Stormwater ABC News. Viewed 31/8/20,
Use Options: Summary of Research Findings. Goyder <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-04/water-banking-
Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. aquifers-australia-facing-future-drought/12009702>.
14/1. Goyder Institute for Water Research, Adelaide, South
Gao L, Connor JD and Dillon P (2014) The Economics of
Australia.
Groundwater Replenishment for Reliable Urban Water
<http://www.goyderinstitute.org/_r106/media/system/attrib/fil
Supply. Water 6(6), 1662-1670. DOI: 10.3390/w6061662.
e/97/MARSUO-Summary%20of%20Research%20Findings-
final_web.pdf>. Ginige MP, Kaksonen AH, Morris C, Shackelton M and
Patterson BM (2013) Bacterial community and groundwater
Dillon P, Page D, Dandy G, Leonard R, Tjandraatmadja G,
quality changes in an anaerobic aquifer during groundwater
Vanderzalm J, Rouse K, Barry K, Gonzalez D and Myers B
recharge with aerobic recycled water. FEMS Microbiology
(2014b) Using urban stormwater and aquifers or reservoirs
Ecology 85(3), 553-567. DOI: 10.1111/1574-6941.12137.
for non-potable and potable supplies: Key outcomes from
the MARSUO research project. AWA Journal Water 41(5), Gonzalez D, Dillon P, Page D and Vanderzalm J (2020) The
62-67. potential for water banking in Australia's Murray Darling
Basin to increase drough resilience. Water 12(10). DOI:
Dillon P, Page D, Pavelic P, Toze S, Vanderzalm J, Barry K,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102936.
Levett K, Regel R, Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Pitman S, Purdie M,
Marles C, Power N and Wintgens T (2008) City of Gonzalez D, Page D, Vanderzalm J and Dillon P (2015)
Salisbury's progress towards being its own drinking water Setting Water Quality Trigger Levels for the Operation and
catchment. Singapore International Water Week. Singapore. Management of a MAR System in Parafield, South Australia.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 20(3). DOI:
Dillon P, Page D, Vanderzalm J, Toze S, Simmons C, Hose
10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001001.
G, Martin R, Johnston K, Higginson S and Morris R (2020)
Lessons from 10 years of experience with Australia's risk- Gonzalez D, Tjandraatmadja G, Barry K, Vanderzalm J,
based guidelines for managed aquifer recharge. MDPI Kaksonen AH, Dillon P, Puzon GJ, Sidhu J, Wylie J,
Journal Water 12, 537. DOI: doi:10.3390/w12020537. Goodman N and Low J (2016) Biofouling potential and
material reactivity in a simulated water distribution network
Dillon P, Pavelic P, Page D, Beringen H and Ward J (2009)
supplied with stormwater recycled via managed aquifer
Managed aquifer recharge: an introduction. Waterlines
recharge. Water Research 105, 110-118. DOI:
Report Series No. 13. Canberra, Australia.
10.1016/j.watres.2016.08.066.
<https://recharge.iah.org/files/2016/11/MAR_Intro-
Waterlines-2009.pdf>. Higginson S, Jones A, Moscovis V and Hamilton S (in press)
Perth groundwater replenishment scheme, Western
Dillon P, Pavelic P, Toze S, Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Martin R,
Australia. Case study 9. In: Zheng Y, Ross A, Villholth KG
Knapton A and Pidsley D (2006) Role of aquifer storage in
and Dillon P (eds) Managing Aquifer Recharge: A
water reuse. Desalination 88, 123-134. DOI:
showcase for resilience and sustainability. UNESCO.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.109.
Mankad A, Walton A and Leonard R (2013) Public Attitudes
Dillon P, Stuyfzand P, Grischek T, Lluria M, Pyne RDG, Jain
towards Managed Aquifer Recharge and Urban Stormwater
RC, Bear J, Schwarz J, Wang W, Fernandez E, Stefan C,
Use in Adelaide. Goyder Institute for Water Research
Pettenati M, van der Gun J, Sprenger C, Massmann G,
Technical Report Series No. 13/10. Goyder Institute for
Scanlon BR, Bonilla Valverde JP, Palma Nova A, Ansems
Water Research Adelaide, South Australia.
N, Posavec K, Ha K, Martin R and Sapiano M (2019) Sixty
<http://www.goyderinstitute.org/_r110/media/system/attrib/fil
years of global progress in managed aquifer recharge.
e/101/Online%20survey%20report%20-
Hydrogeology Journal 27, 1-30. DOI:
%20Approved%20for%20web.pdf>.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1841-z.
Miotlinski K, Dillon PJ, Pavelic P, Barry K and Kremer S
Dillon PJ (2015) Australian progress in managed aquifer
(2014) Recovery of injected freshwater from a brackish
recharge and the water banking frontier. AWA Jounal Water
aquifer with a multiwell system. Groundwater 52(4), 495-
42(6), 53-57.
502.

16
 Naumann B, J. V, Page D, Gonzalez D, Dandy G and Dillon Based%20Management%20Plan%20Goyder%20June%202
P (in press) Multi-site urban stormwater aquifer storage and 014.pdf>.
recovery to supply a suburban non-potable water distribution
Page D, Vanderzalm J, Dillon P, Gonzalez D and Barry K
system in Salisbury, South Australia. Case study 14. In:
(2016) Stormwater Quality Review to Evaluate Treatment for
Zheng Y, Ross A, Villholth KG and Dillon P (eds) Managing
Drinking Water Supply via Managed Aquifer Recharge.
Aquifer Recharge: A showcase for resilience and
Water Air and Soil Pollution 227(9). DOI: 10.1007/s11270-
sustainability. UNESCO.
016-3021-x.
NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC (2009a) Australian Guidelines for
Page DW, Peeters L, Vanderzalm J, Barry K and Gonzalez
Water Recycling: Managed Aquifer Recharge. National
D (2017) Effect of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) on
Water Quality Management Strategy Document No. 24. .
recovered stormwater quality variability. Water Research
Australia.
117, 1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.049.
NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC (2009b) Australian Guidelines for
Page DW, Vanderzalm JL, Barry KE, Torkzaban S,
Water Recycling: Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse.
Gonzalez D and Dillon PJ (2015) E-coil and turbidity
National Water Quality Management Strategy Document No
attenuation during urban stormwater recycling via Aquifer
23. Australia.
Storage and Recovery in a brackish limestone aquifer.
Page D, Dillon P, Vanderzalm J, Bekele E, Barry K, Ecological Engineering 84, 427-434. DOI:
Miotlinski K and Levett KJ (2010a) Managed aquifer 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.09.023.
recharge case study risk assessments. CSIRO Water for a
Patterson BM, Pitoi MM, Furness AJ, Bastow TP and
Healthy Country Flagship, Australia.
McKinley AJ (2012) Fate of N-Nitrosodimethylamine in
<https://doi.org/10.4225/08/5851899a5a3ff >.
recycled water after recharge into anaerobic aquifer. Water
Page D, Dillon P, Vanderzalm J, Toze S, Sidhu J, Barry K, Research 46(4), 1260-1272. DOI:
Levett K, Kremer S and Regel R (2010b) Risk Assessment 10.1016/j.watres.2011.12.032.
of Aquifer Storage Transfer and Recovery with Urban
Radcliffe JC, Page D, Naumann B and Dillon P (2017) Fifty
Stormwater for Producing Water of a Potable Quality.
Years of Water Sensitive Urban Design, Salisbury, South
Journal of Environmental Quality 39(6), 2029-2039. DOI:
Australia. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering
10.2134/jeq2010.0078.
11(4). DOI: 10.1007/s11783-017-0937-3.
Page D, Gonzalez D, Dillon P, Vanderzalm J, Vadakatuu G,
Ross A (in press) Economic costs and benefits of managed
Toze S, Sidhu J, Miotlinski K, Torkzaban S and Barry K
aquifer recharge. In: Zheng Y, Ross A, Villholth KG and
(2013a) Managed Aquifer Recharge and Urban Stormwater
Dillon P (eds) Managing Aquifer Recharge: A showcase for
Use Options: Public Health and Environmental Risk
resilience and sustainability. UNESCO.
Assessment Final Report. Goyder Institute for Water
Research Technical Report Series No. 13/17. Goyder Ross A and Hasnain S (2018) Factors affecting the cost of
Institute for Water Research Adelaide, South Australia. managed aquifer recharge (MAR) schemes. Sustainable
<http://www.goyderinstitute.org/_r106/media/system/attrib/fil Water Resources Management 4, 179-190. DOI:
e/97/MARSUO-Summary%20of%20Research%20Findings- https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0210-8.
final_web.pdf>.
Sasidharan S, Bradford SA, Simunek J, Torkzaban S and
Page D, Gonzalez D, Naumann B, Dillon P, Vanderzalm J Vanderzalm J (2017) Transport and fate of viruses in
and Barry K (2013b) Stormwater Managed Aquifer sediment and stormwater from a Managed Aquifer Recharge
Recharge Risk-Based Managment Plan, Parafield site. Journal of Hydrology 555, 724-735. DOI:
Stormwater Harvesting System, Stormwater Supply to the 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.10.062.
Mawson Lakes Recycled Water Scheme, Industrial Uses
Schafer D, Donn M, Atteia O, Sun J, MacRae C, Raven M,
and Public Open Space Irrigation. Goyder Institute for Water
Pejcic B and Prommer H (2018) Fluoride and phosphate
Research Technical Report 13/18. Goyder Institute for
release from carbonate-rich fluorapatite during managed
Water Research Adelaide, South Australia.,
aquifer recharge. Journal of Hydrology 562, 809-820. DOI:
<http://www.goyderinstitute.org/_r114/media/system/attrib/fil
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.05.043.
e/105/2_Parafield%20Stormwater%20MAR%20Risk-

17
 Schafer D, Sun J, Jamieson J, Siade AJ, Atteia O and Water Source (2018) Perth looks to water recycling to
Prommer H (2020) Model-Based Analysis of Reactive secure water supply. Australian Water Association. Viewed
Transport Processes Governing Fluoride and Phosphate 9/9/20, <https://watersource.awa.asn.au/business/assets-
Release and Attenuation during Managed Aquifer Recharge. and-operations/perth-looks-to-water-recycling-to-secure-
Environmental Science & Technology 54(5), 2800-2811. water-supply/>.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06972.
WSAA (2020) All options onthe table: Urban water supply
Seibert S, Atteia O, Salmon SU, Siade A, Douglas G and options for Australia. Australia. Viewed 15/12/2020,
Prommer H (2016) Identification and quantification of redox <https://www.wsaa.asn.au/publication/all-options-table-
and pH buffering processes in a heterogeneous, low urban-water-supply-options-australia>.
carbonate aquifer during managed aquifer recharge. Water
Zheng Y, Ross A, Villholth KG and Dillon P (eds) (in press)
Resources Research 52(5), 4003-4025. DOI:
Managing Aquifer Recharge: A showcase for resilience and
10.1002/2015wr017802.
sustainability. UNESCO-IAH-GRIPP.
Seibert S, Prommer H, Siade A, Harris B, Trefry M and
Martin M (2014) Heat and mass transport during a
groundwater replenishment trial in a highly heterogeneous
aquifer. Water Resources Research 50(12), 9463-9483. THE AUTHORS
DOI: 10.1002/2013wr015219.

Shareef A, Page D, Vanderzalm J, Williams M, Gupta

Joanne Vanderzalm
VVSR, Dillon P and Kookana R (2014) Biodegradation of
Simazine and Diuron Herbicides under Aerobic and Anoxic Joanne is a senior research scientist at
Conditions Relevant to Managed Aquifer Recharge of Storm CSIRO and has 20 years’ experience in
Water. Clean-Soil Air Water 42(6), 745-752. DOI: managed aquifer recharge research.
10.1002/clen.201300092.
Email: [email protected]
Sun J, Donn MJ, Gerber P, Higginson S, Siade AJ, Schafer
D, Seibert S and Prommer H (2020) Assessing and
managing large-scale geochemical impacts from Bruce Naumann
groundwater replenishment with highly treated reclaimed
wastewater. Water Resources Research 56(11). DOI: Bruce is Manager of the Salisbury Water
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028066. Business Unit at the City of Salisbury. Under
Bruce’s lead, Salisbury is recognised as a
Vanderzalm JL, Page DW, Dillon PJ, Barry KE and leader in stormwater harvesting and MAR.
Gonzalez D (2018) Nutrient Removal during Stormwater
Aquifer Storage and Recovery in an Anoxic Carbonate Email: [email protected]
Aquifer. Journal of Environmental Quality 47(2), 276-286.
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2016.12.0486.
Simon Higginson
Water Corporation (2009) Water forever: towards climate
resilience. Western Australia. Viewed 10/9/20, Simon has been the lead researcher
<https://www.watercorporation.com.au/- developing groundwater replenishment
/media/WaterCorp/Documents/Our-Water/Sustainability- schemes and managed aquifer schemes for
and-Innovation/Securing-Supply/Water-forever-50-year- the Water Corporation since 2007.
plan.pdf>. Email: [email protected]
Water Corporation (2013) Groundwater replenishment trial:
Final report. Western Australia. Viewed 8/9/2020,
<https://consultation.epa.wa.gov.au/seven-day-comment-on-
referrals/perth-groundwater-replenishment-
scheme/supporting_documents/Appendix%207%20Ground
water%20Replenishment%20Final%20Report.pdf>.

18
 Declan Page Graeme Dandy

Declan is a senior research scientist at Graeme is an Emeritus Professor at the

CSIRO and has 15 years’ experience in University of Adelaide with over 40 years’
managed aquifer recharge research. experience in the optimisation of water
resources and environmental systems.
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

Andrew Jones
Karen Barry
Andrew is Manager Resource Investigations.
Andrew’s team of hydrogeologists support Karen is a research officer at CSIRO with 25
development of groundwater replenishment years’ experience in MAR.
and managed aquifer recharge schemes for
Email: [email protected]
the Water Corporation.

Email: [email protected]
Peter Dillon

Peter is an Honorary Research Fellow with

Vanessa Moscovis
CSIRO Land and Water, an Adjunct
Vanessa manages the Integrated Water Professor with NCGRT, and a former co-
Cycle Planning team for Metro Perth. chair IAH-Commission on MAR.
She was involved in trialling Groundwater
Email: [email protected]
Replenishment for the Water Corporation
and developing planning for a full
scale scheme.
Henning Prommer
Email: [email protected]
Henning is a Winthrop Research Professor
in a joint position between the University of
Western Australia and CSIRO Land Water.
Stacey Hamilton
Email: [email protected]
Stacey is Team Leader – Membrane
Treatment and has been involved with the
Perth Groundwater Replenishment Scheme
Mike Donn
since 2011.
Mike is a senior experimental scientist at
Email: [email protected]
CSIRO and has 15 years’ experience in
biogeochemistry research including
applications to managed aquifer recharge.
Dennis Gonzalez
Email: [email protected]
Dennis is a spatial analyst at CSIRO and
has 9 years’ experience in water resources
research including managed aquifer
recharge.

Email: [email protected]

19