Eff Guide

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES
USE OF EFFLUENT BY IRRIGATION

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES
USE OF EFFLUENT BY IRRIGATION

From 24 September 2003 the Department of Environment and Conservation
(DEC) incorporates the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), which is
established in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 as the
Authority responsible for administering the Protection of the Environment
Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act). Statutory functions and powers in the POEO
Act continue to be exercised in the name of the EPA.
Published by:
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)
59–61 Goulburn Street Sydney
PO Box A290
Sydney South 1232
Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard)
Phone: 131 555 (information & publications requests)
TTY: (02) 9211 4723
Fax: (02) 9995 5999
Email: info@environment.nsw.gov.au
Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au
The Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) is pleased to allow

this material to be reproduced in whole or in part, provided the meaning is
unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged.
ISBN 1 74137 076 0
October 2004
DEC 2004/87
Printed on recycled paper
Foreword
Water recycling is becoming a critical element for managing our water
resources. By safely irrigating recycled water, sustainable development can be
achieved while conserving our high quality water supplies. Being able to
access alternative safe water sources is particularly critical in times of
drought.
By providing an additional source of water, recycling can help to decrease the
diversion of water from sensitive river and wetland ecosystems.
Another major benefit of effluent reuse by irrigation is the decrease in
wastewater discharges to natural waterways. When pollutant discharges to
waterways are removed or reduced, the pollutant loadings to these waters are
decreased. Substances that can be pollutants when discharged to waterways
can be beneficially reused for irrigation. For example, plant nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus can stimulate harmful algal blooms in waterways
but are a valuable fertiliser for crops.
In some cases, returning well treated water to rivers might provide a better
outcome than reuse by irrigation, for example, to supplement river flows. This
Guideline will however help increase the options available for water
management, particularly those sources of wastewater that are not suitable or
adequately treated for safe discharge to our rivers, estuaries and oceans.
Many water needs can be satisfied with recycled water as long as it is
adequately treated to ensure water quality is appropriate for the proposed
use. Greater treatment and management is required for uses where there is a
greater chance of human exposure to the recycled water.
Effluent can pose environmental, public health or agricultural resource risks if
not managed appropriately and the information in this Guideline will support
the establishment of safe effluent irrigation reuse schemes.
Water recycling has proven to be effective and successful in creating a new
and reliable water supply, while not compromising public health. Effluent
reuse by irrigation is now an accepted practice that will play a greater role in
our overall water supply in the future.
The NSW Government is committed to encouraging and optimising the safe
reuse of water. This Guideline will provide an essential information resource
to help meet these goals and promote the wise use of our limited water
resources.
Bob Debus
Minister for the Environment
Contents
Foreword ...................................................................................................................iii
Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................viii
Symbols and Abbreviations................................................................................................ix
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................x
1. Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose and scope ...........................................................................................................1
Application of this Guideline....................................................................................................... 2
Related documents ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Environmental performance objectives........................................................................4
1.3 Uses of effluent in irrigation...........................................................................................5
1.4 Guidance............................................................................................................................5
1.5 How this Guideline is organised...................................................................................6
1.6 Procedure checklist for establishing a system.............................................................6
Planning........................................................................................................................................... 6
Site selection.................................................................................................................................... 6
Design .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Statutory requirements ................................................................................................................. 7
Installation....................................................................................................................................... 7
Operation and maintenance......................................................................................................... 7
2. Site Considerations...................................................................................................8
2.1 Land use conflicts.............................................................................................................8
2.2 Selecting the site ...............................................................................................................8
Climate............................................................................................................................................. 8
Preliminary investigations............................................................................................................ 8
Detailed soil investigations........................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Soil properties.................................................................................................................10
Soil sodicity ................................................................................................................................... 10
Soil salinity .................................................................................................................................... 10
Saturated hydraulic conductivity.............................................................................................. 11
Available water holding capacity.............................................................................................. 11
Soil pH ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations............................................................. 11
Emerson Aggregate Test (EAT)................................................................................................. 12
Soil phosphorus adsorption ....................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Soil organic matter .........................................................................................................13
2.5 Acid sulfate soils ............................................................................................................13
2.6 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................15
Groundwater vulnerability ........................................................................................................ 15
2.7 Surface water ..................................................................................................................16
2.8 Flood potential................................................................................................................17
iv
3. Effluent Quality and Irrigation Considerations................................................18
3.1 Classification of effluent for environmental management......................................18
3.2 Organic content ..............................................................................................................20
3.3 Solids................................................................................................................................20
3.4 Nutrients..........................................................................................................................21
Nitrogen......................................................................................................................................... 21
Phosphorus ................................................................................................................................... 22
Potassium ...................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 pH .....................................................................................................................................23
3.6 Chemical contaminants.................................................................................................23
Metals............................................................................................................................................. 24
Synthetic organic compounds.................................................................................................... 25
Herbicides ..................................................................................................................................... 26
3.7 Mineral salts....................................................................................................................26
3.8 Specific ions.....................................................................................................................28
Sodium........................................................................................................................................... 28
Chloride and chlorine.................................................................................................................. 29
Alkalinity....................................................................................................................................... 30
Bicarbonate.................................................................................................................................... 30
Boron.............................................................................................................................................. 30
Fluoride.......................................................................................................................................... 30
3.9 Oil and grease.................................................................................................................31
3.10 Treatment and disinfection ..........................................................................................31
Municipal sewage effluent ......................................................................................................... 32
Other effluent types ..................................................................................................................... 32
3.11 Other factors....................................................................................................................33
4. Design Considerations...........................................................................................34
Licensing considerations in the design process......................................................................34
Load-based licensing ..................................................................................................................34
The use of models in design ......................................................................................................35
Other design considerations....................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Calculating land area and storage requirements......................................................35
Full reuse schemes ....................................................................................................................... 35
Partial reuse schemes................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 The water balance ..........................................................................................................36
Precipitation.................................................................................................................................. 36
Effluent applied............................................................................................................................ 37
Evapotranspiration ...................................................................................................................... 37
Percolation..................................................................................................................................... 38
Runoff ............................................................................................................................................ 39
Effluent storage............................................................................................................................. 39
4.3 Nutrient loading rates ...................................................................................................40
Nitrogen balance .......................................................................................................................... 42
Phosphorus compounds ............................................................................................................. 44
Nutrient imbalances .................................................................................................................... 47
v
4.4 Salinity control and salt balances ................................................................................48
Soil salinity and plant growth.................................................................................................... 48
4.5 Organic Loading Rates..................................................................................................51
4.6 Heavy metals and persistent organic chemicals.......................................................51
Herbicides ..................................................................................................................................... 55
4.7 Models .............................................................................................................................55
The DEC model ............................................................................................................................ 57
4.8 Plant selection and land use.........................................................................................58
4.9 Erosion control................................................................................................................58
4.10 Separation distances and management of buffer zones ..........................................58
4.11 Irrigation..........................................................................................................................62
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 62
Suitable irrigation areas .............................................................................................................. 63
Irrigation scheduling ................................................................................................................... 63
Storage management................................................................................................................... 64
5. Operation and Management Considerations.....................................................65
5.1 Site management plans .................................................................................................65
5.2 Control systems..............................................................................................................66
5.3 Monitoring systems .......................................................................................................67
Frequency of sampling................................................................................................................ 68
Effluent .......................................................................................................................................... 69
Soil .................................................................................................................................................. 70
Surface waters............................................................................................................................... 72
Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 73
Plants.............................................................................................................................................. 73
Animals.......................................................................................................................................... 74
5.4 Tailwater and stormwater runoff control ..................................................................74
Uncontaminated runoff diversion............................................................................................. 74
Contaminated runoff collection................................................................................................. 74
5.5 Site access ........................................................................................................................75
5.6 Occupational health and safety issues........................................................................76
5.7 Plant and animal health ................................................................................................76
5.8 Reporting on scheme performance .............................................................................78
5.9 Transfer of effluent to other users ...............................................................................78
6. Statutory Requirements .........................................................................................79
6.1 Environment Protection Licences................................................................................79
Background................................................................................................................................... 79
When is a licence required?........................................................................................................ 80
Assessing a licence application .................................................................................................. 81
Information to be included when applying for a licence....................................................... 82
Licence conditions........................................................................................................................ 86
6.2 Environmental offences ................................................................................................86
vi
6.3 Development consent....................................................................................................86
Part 4 of the EP&A Act................................................................................................................ 87
Integrated development assessment (IDA) ............................................................................. 87
Part 5 of the EP&A Act................................................................................................................ 87
Examples ....................................................................................................................................... 88
6.4 Other statutory requirements ......................................................................................89
Sewerage schemes managed by local government ................................................................ 89
Activities within national parks................................................................................................. 89
Threatened species....................................................................................................................... 89
Protection of drinking water supplies ...................................................................................... 90
Animals to abattoirs..................................................................................................................... 90
Pure food legislation.................................................................................................................... 91
Australian and New Zealand Joint Food Standards Code.................................................... 91
7. References and Further Reading ..........................................................................92
7.1 References........................................................................................................................92
7.2 Further reading...............................................................................................................95
Soils, site suitability and planning............................................................................................. 95
Plant water and nutrient requirements .................................................................................... 95
Sewage effluent ............................................................................................................................ 95
Other .............................................................................................................................................. 95
Glossary .................................................................................................................................97
Appendix 1: Guidelines for the Use of Reclaimed Water from
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants...............................................105
Appendix 2: Load-based Licensing .........................................................................108
Appendix 3: Soil Texture Factors for Soil Salinity Measurement .....................109
Appendix 4: The Effluent Reuse Irrigation Model (ERIM)................................110
Model description .....................................................................................................................110
Model assumptions...................................................................................................................111
Decisions .....................................................................................................................................111
Modelling method ..................................................................................................................... 111
Model time step.......................................................................................................................... 112
Percolation................................................................................................................................... 113
Capacity independent solution method................................................................................. 113
Crop factors................................................................................................................................. 114
Rainfall runoff and terminal pond sizing............................................................................... 114
Evaporation, rainfall and the storage pond ........................................................................... 114
Discounting rainfall for tree canopy interception................................................................. 115
Discounting irrigation for spray misting................................................................................ 115
Wet weather augmented flows................................................................................................ 115
Method of characterising schemes .......................................................................................... 116
Precautionary discharges.......................................................................................................... 116
Formal model specification ...................................................................................................... 117
Appendix 5: Government Agency Roles ................................................................119
Appendix 6: Department of Environment and Conservation Offices ..............121
vii
Figures and Tables
Table 2.1: Landform requirements for effluent irrigation systems.................................13
Table 2.2: Typical soil characteristics for effluent irrigation systems.............................14
Table 3.1: Classification of effluent for environmental management ............................19
Table 3.2: Mineralisation of organic nitrogen in wastewater sludge
and effluent in soil ................................................................................................22
Table 3.3: Trigger values for metals in irrigation effluent
for long term use on all soil types (up to 100 years) .......................................25
Table 3.4: General irrigation water salinity ratings
based on electrical conductivity .........................................................................27
Figure 3.1: Relationship between SAR and EC of irrigation water
for prediction of soil structural stability............................................................29
Table 4.1: Crop factors for some crops, trees and pasture................................................37
Table 4.2: Yield and nutrient content of crops in NSW
for cultivation under irrigation with effluent...................................................41
Table 4.3: Phosphorus adsorption potential of NSW soils (1m depth)..........................47
Table 4.4: Yield reduction of crops due to soil salinity.....................................................49
Table 4.5: Yield reduction of trees due to soil salinity ......................................................50
Table 4.6: Maximum permitted topsoil concentration
for chemical contaminants ..................................................................................53
Table 4.7: Concentrations of herbicides in irrigation effluent
at which crop injury may occur..........................................................................55
Table 4.8 Sensitive receptors of effluent irrigation schemes...........................................60
Table 4.9: Recommended buffer distances to water resources and public areas.........61
Table 5.1: Recommended effluent sampling frequency...................................................70
Table 5.2: Recommended soil monitoring strategy...........................................................72
Table 6.1: Design parameters for effluent irrigation systems..........................................85
Table A1: Guidelines for treatment, disinfection and irrigation controls
for the spray application of municipal sewage effluent...............................105
Table A3: Soil texture factors for converting EC 1:5 soil-water solution
measurement to saturated extract....................................................................109
Table A5: Summary of key agency regulatory and advisory roles ..............................119
viii
Symbols and Abbreviations
ABM Australian Bureau of Meteorology
AMG Australian Map Grid
ARR Australian rainfall and runoff
ASS Acid sulfate soils
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
cfu colony-forming unit (of thermotolerant bacteria)
COD chemical oxygen demand
DA Development Application
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
DIPNR Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources
dS/m deciSiemens per metre
EC electrical conductivity
ECe electrical conductivity of saturated soil extract
EIS environmental impact statement
EMP environmental management plan
EPA Environment Protection Authority
ERIM effluent reuse irrigation model
h hour
ha hectare
IDA Integrated Development Assessment
HCB hexachlorobenzene
kL/d kilolitres per day
L litre
LBL Load-based licensing
LEP Local Environmental Plan
meq/L milliequivalent per litre
mg milligrams
mL millilitre
ML megalitre
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
OC organochlorine
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
ppm parts per million
REF review of environmental factors
REP Regional Environmental Plan
SAR sodium adsorption ratio
SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy
STP sewage treatment plant
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
UV ultra-violet
ix
Executive Summary
The reuse of effluent by irrigation can make a significant contribution to the
integrated management of our water resources. When the water and nutrients
in effluent are beneficially utilised through irrigation some of the water
extracted from rivers can be replaced and the amount of pollutants
discharged into our waterways can be reduced. The Department of
Environment and Conservation (NSW) has adopted a policy of encouraging
the beneficial use of effluent where it is safe and practicable to do so and
where it provides the best environmental outcome.
This Guideline is educational and advisory in nature. It is not a mandatory or
regulatory tool and it does not introduce new environmental requirements.
The emphasis is on best management practices related to the management of
effluent by irrigation, to be used to design and operate effluent irrigation
systems, with the goal of reducing risks to the environment, public health and
agricultural productivity. The Guideline will assist decision-makers and
industry members in achieving the best environmental outcome for each site
at least cost.
The Guideline is not intended to provide specific guidance on every
individual industry’s detailed issues. Rather it provides an information base
to be used as a foundation for addressing issues that might arise in the range
of situations, circumstances and industries in which effluent irrigation may be
considered or underway. Industry specific guidelines or site-specific
information may need to be taken into account when applying the Guideline.
Approaches to effluent irrigation management other than those outlined in
this Guideline will always be considered on their merits provided that they
demonstrate environmental sustainability and are safe from a public health
perspective.
This Guideline has been developed through extensive consultation with
industry and government and is based on national guidelines and principles
where they are relevant.
The Guideline reflects the idea that a sustainable effluent irrigation system
will be a function of the interactions between the site, soil, agronomic system
and effluent characteristics, and diligent operational practices. These
interactions require effective management to maximise the resources available
in effluent and ensure that the environment is protected.
Selecting a suitable site is important for successfully establishing an effluent
irrigation system. The Guideline provides criteria for assessing a proposed
irrigation site, and discusses related issues important to the assessment of a
site. Landform and soil characteristics can limit the use of effluent on some
sites for example, because of the presence of soil that is poorly drained or
excessively well drained. The relationship between effluent quality and soil
characteristics that should also be considered when selecting a site are also
outlined to ensure that soil structure is not likely to be adversely affected
and/or pollution is not likely to be caused.
x
In relation to effluent quality, effluent contains valuable resources (water,
organic matter and nutrients). However, in excessive amounts these can be
detrimental to soils or plant growth. Effluent can also contain chemical
contaminants, salts and pathogens that can pose a risk to the wider
environment, public health or may cause pollution. These risks can be
minimised by applying the criteria and information provided in the Guideline
to during site selection, design and operation phases of an effluent irrigation
system.
Best management practices which optimise the use of the water, nutrients and
organic matter and reduce the potential for harm from other contaminants are
also critical. For an effluent irrigation system to be sustainable, the amount of
water, nutrients and chemicals that will be applied should be determined to
ensure that it is the optimum for the crop or cultivar, the agronomic system
employed, and site-specific factors such as climate, topography and soil.
Adjustments to the amount of effluent applied or the area over which it is
applied can then be made to ensure that irrigated plants and environments
are not stressed by water or by the organic material, nutrients or chemicals
applied.
Water and nutrient balances are used to calculate the amount of water and
nutrients that should be applied, and at what times, to meet the crop
requirements while ensuring increases in runoff and percolation are
minimised. The water balance is calculated to determine the maximum
volume of effluent that can be sustainably used. The elements to be
considered in a water balance are rainfall, evapotranspiration, runoff and
percolation. For some effluents, the loading rates of nutrients such as nitrogen
and phosphorus can limit the quantity of effluent to be used for irrigation in a
given area. In a nutrient balance the amount of the specific nutrient, (e.g.
nitrogen or phosphorus) assumed to be applied in a year is compared with
the amount taken up by the biological or physical processes of the crop-soil
system. Pre-irrigation soil nutrient status is also considered.
In some systems the amount of effluent that can be applied is limited by
potential adverse impacts of salinity, heavy metals and persistent organic
chemicals. The Guideline suggests that key components in managing these
types of limitations include designing the system to avoid any potential
impacts, and having in place management and monitoring system to correct
any emerging problems and to identify when action needs to be taken to
ensure the environmental and agronomic performance of the system.
xi
1. Introduction
Effluent irrigation is encouraged when it is safe and practicable to do so and
where it provides the best environmental outcome. The NSW Department of
Environment and Conservation (DEC) especially encourages substituting
effluent for high quality water wherever high quality water is being used for a
purpose for which effluent water would be acceptable. Where this is not
possible, or would not provide the best environmental and natural resource
outcome, effluent should be returned to the water cycle in an environmentally
and socially responsible manner.
This document covers the broad framework, principles and objectives that
should be considered when establishing an irrigation system that uses
effluent (effluent irrigation system). Development of sustainable effluent
irrigation schemes requires technical analyses of environmental interactions.
Proponents of effluent irrigation schemes are encouraged to seek out industry
specific guidelines and/or seek advice from suitably qualified personnel.
1.1 Purpose and scope

This Guideline provides information for planners, designers, installers and
operators of irrigation systems that use effluent from a wide range of rural
and industrial sources, including treated municipal sewage effluent.
For the purposes of this Guideline, effluent is considered to be as defined in
the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment Regulation 1999; a
full definition is provided in the Glossary. In summary, effluent is wastewater
from the collection or treatment systems associated with sewerage works,
processing industries (livestock, wood, paper or food), intensive livestock,
aquaculture or agricultural industries.
The aims of this document are to:
• encourage the beneficial use of effluent and show how this might be
accomplished in an ecologically sustainable manner
• provide guidelines for planning, designing, installing, operating and
monitoring effluent irrigation systems to diminish risks to public health,
the environment and agricultural resources
• outline the statutory requirements that may be needed for an effluent
irrigation system in NSW.
This Guideline supersedes SPCC (1979), Design Guide for the Disposal of
Wastewaters by Land Application; WP-7 Water Conservation by Reuse (SPCC
1986); and revises the 1995 Draft Environmental Guidelines for Industry – The
Utilisation of Treated Effluent by Irrigation (EPA unpublished).
The use of effluent for irrigation in non-domestic situations is the only option
addressed in this document. The NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential Use
of Reclaimed Water (NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee 1993) covers
urban reclaimed water applications where the water has been treated and
received quality control to render it suitable for general distribution through
1. Introduction 1
dual reticulation systems and for most non-potable uses in urban areas with
open public access.
This Guideline does not cover:
• uses of effluent for purposes other than irrigation
• irrigation of effluent from single household on-site sewage treatment
systems (see Department of Local Government 1998)
• selection of sites for effluent storage and transport infrastructure or their
design and construction
• wastes that are classified as hazardous, Group A, Group B or Group C and
will require an environment protection licence for their generation,
storage, treatment or transport.
It is the proponent’s responsibility to assess whether their effluent falls under
the latter category. Proponents may contact DEC or refer to the Department’s
Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid
and Non-Liquid Wastes (EPA 1999a).
Application of this Guideline

This Guideline is educational and advisory in nature and provides
information on best management practices where effluent is managed by
irrigation. This information can be used in the design and operation of
effluent irrigation systems and can also be relevant and useful for meeting
environmental requirements under the Protection the Environment Operations
Act 1997 (POEO Act) and in negotiations for premises-specific environment
protection licences.
There are no new environmental requirements introduced by this Guideline
and any requirements under the POEO Act or in environment protection
licences prevail. The management practices described in this document are
not the only approaches to sustainable effluent management that can be
taken. Technically sound site-specific proposals and approaches are always
considered on their merits where they meet environmental requirements.
While DEC and local councils encourage the safe, sustainable use of effluent,
it is recognised that full reuse of all effluent is not always possible. In some
cases the best environmental and natural resource outcome will be provided
by a combination of reuse and discharge. In these cases, the document
provides information that can be useful for the portion of effluent reused.
Requirements for effluent discharge are negotiated on a case-by-case basis
and in all cases, DEC aims to ensure that environmental objectives for water
quality are met. However, experience has shown that for some types of
effluent, the level of contamination means that opportunities to discharge to
the environment are limited.
This document can be used by the designers of new sites for information on
issues that are likely to constrain the use of effluent in irrigation and to
develop approaches that manage environmental or public health risks.
2 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

For existing sites the need for environmental improvement will be measured
against the environmental requirements under the POEO Act, in environment
protection licences and environmental performance information such as the
results of monitoring data. Those sites using similar management practices to
those described in this document will find that the document contains
information on the issues that are likely to need to be assessed to determine
the likelihood of meeting environmental requirements and the potential
sustainability of the site. The environmental performance objectives described
in Section 1.2 should be taken into account whenever the environmental
performance of an existing operation is being reviewed.
DEC and local councils are aware that some existing facilities may need to
improve environmental performance over a longer time frame due to
technical or economic difficulties. In these cases, a best management approach
tailored to the site that meets environmental requirements will be taken and
improved practices negotiated with DEC or the relevant local council over a
reasonable time frame.
Related documents
Other relevant guidelines, endorsed for use in NSW by the NSW Government,
should be read in conjunction with this Guideline. These include national and
NSW industry-specific guidelines developed by government agencies or
industry. Where national or industry-specific guidelines and this Guideline
give conflicting guidance on proposals to irrigate effluent, the environmental
performance objectives of this Guideline should be referred to in order to
determine whether the objectives would be achieved by the proposal.
Other documents produced by the NSW Government and other agencies,
such as the National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (SCARM
1997); and the NSW Feedlot Manual (NSW Agriculture 1997) provide
information on the use of effluent by irrigation and should be used to provide
more industry-specific guidance where appropriate.
National guidelines are also available for some industries and provide a
framework for consistent environmental management across Australia. State
guidelines provide further detailed information to suit local environmental
and regulatory conditions.
Relevant National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) guidelines
include: Guidelines for Sewage Systems – Reclaimed Water (ARMCANZ,
ANZECC & NHMRC 2000); and Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for
Fresh and Marine Water Quality, in particular Volume 3, Primary Industries –
Rationale and Background (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000). See Section 7.2,
Further Reading for other industry-specific NWQMS guidelines.
1. Introduction 3
1.2 Environmental performance objectives
The following environmental performance objectives apply to the use of
effluent by irrigation.
Protection of surface waters: Effluent irrigation systems should be located,
designed, constructed and operated so that surface waters do not become
contaminated by any flow from irrigation areas, including effluent, rainfall runoff,
contaminated sub-surface flows or contaminated groundwater.
Protection of groundwater: Effluent irrigation areas and systems should be
located, designed, constructed and operated so that the current or future beneficial
uses of groundwater do not diminish as a result of contamination by the effluent or
runoff from the irrigation scheme or changing water tables.
Protection of lands: An effluent irrigation system should be ecologically
sustainable. In particular, it should maintain or improve the capacity of the land to
grow plants, and should result in no deterioration of land quality through soil
structure degradation, salinisation, waterlogging, chemical contamination or soil
erosion.
Protection of plant and animal health: Design and management of effluent
irrigation systems should not compromise the health and productivity of plants,
domestic animals, wildlife and the aquatic ecosystem. Risk management procedures
should avoid or manage the impacts of pathogenic micro-organisms, biologically
active chemicals, nutrients and oxygen depleting substances.
Prevention of public health risks: The effluent irrigation scheme should be sited,
designed, constructed and operated so as not to compromise public health. In this
regard, special consideration should be given to the provision of barriers that prevent
human exposure to pathogens and contaminants.
Resource use: Potential resources in effluent, such as water, plant nutrients and
organic matter, should be identified, and agronomic systems developed and
implemented for their effective use.
Community amenity: The effluent irrigation system should be located, designed,
constructed and operated to avoid unreasonable interference with any commercial
activity or the comfortable enjoyment of life and property off-site. In this regard,
special consideration should be given to odour, dust, insects and noise.

1.3 Uses of effluent in irrigation
A large body of research has demonstrated the value of effluent in a wide
range of applications, including forestry, horticulture, pasture, turf, land
rehabilitation and recreation areas.
The following uses may be considered, subject to constructing and managing
an effluent irrigation scheme in a manner that does not cause pollution and
meets the environmental performance objectives described herein. The major
uses are:
• landscape watering
• irrigation of pasture, crops, orchards, vineyards, plantation forests and
rehabilitated sites
• irrigation of golf courses, racecourses and other recreation grounds.
Special care needs to be taken when applying effluent to crops, fruit and
vegetables, particularly those designated for human consumption. Where
information is sought on effluent irrigation methods that do not accord with
the public health protection provisions of these guidelines, the proponent
should seek the advice of NSW Health.
1.4 Guidance
This document promotes the use of best management practices in the
planning, design, construction, operation and management of effluent
irrigation systems to achieve a beneficial environmental outcome. Best
management practices are those approaches that prevent or minimise water
and soil pollution at or as close as practicable to the source. Other approaches
might be acceptable, provided that the resulting scheme is ecologically
sustainable, and satisfies the requirements of DEC or local council and other
statutory authorities.
The need for sustainability in an irrigation system is important. To this end, a
program of continuous monitoring and progressive modification might be
necessary to correct design flaws and deficiencies, and to adjust the system as
more complete information on the site becomes available, accommodating
changes in operation over time.
This document is an environmental guide; it is not a design and operations
manual. Technical and scientific problems associated with the use of effluent
can be complex and often require the integrated efforts of several disciplines
in science and engineering. Accordingly, designers and operators might need
to seek advice from specialist consultants and from government authorities
such as NSW Department of Primary Industries, NSW Department of
Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, NSW Health, NSW Food
Authority, and WorkCover NSW. Advice for using effluent in tree plantations
may be obtained from the CSIRO Division of Forestry and Forest Products,
Canberra.
1. Introduction 5
1.5 How this Guideline is organised
This section sets out the broad scope, objectives and procedures for
establishing an effluent irrigation system.
Section 2 provides guidance on the site planning for an effluent irrigation
system.
Section 3 describes important characteristics of effluent when establishing
effluent irrigation systems.
Sections 4 and 5 outline design and operation considerations.
Section 6 summarises statutory requirements for an effluent irrigation
system.
1.6 Procedure checklist for establishing a system

A suggested checklist of procedures for setting up an effluent irrigation
system follows.
Planning
a) Discuss the proposal/plans and inquire about statutory requirements with
the relevant local council or DEC regional office and other authorities as
appropriate (e.g. NSW Department of Primary Industries, NSW Department
of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) regional offices,
NSW Health, and WorkCover NSW). This should occur at an early stage to
ensure that all relevant issues are addressed before the design and
operational phases begin. Appendix 6 summarises the specific regulatory or
advisory information each agency can provide. Appendix 8 lists the DEC
offices.
b) Assess effluent quality (Section 3 provides information on effluent
characteristics that can have an influence on the design of an effluent reuse
scheme.)
Site selection
a) Identify a suitable site and conduct a site assessment (Section 2).
Design
a) Establish the minimum area of irrigation land needed, based on limiting
loading rates, i.e. hydraulic, nutrient, organic and chemical contaminants
(Section 4).
b) Calculate the minimum irrigation land area and wet weather storage needed
for the irrigation system (Section 4).
c) Define the operational processes to be used in effluent irrigation and
management (Section 5).

Statutory requirements
a) Comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority
(EPA)1, Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (for local
government sewerage effluent reuse schemes) or local council, and other
relevant authorities in the planning and design stages (Section 6 and
Appendix 5).
b) Assemble all information necessary and apply for licences or approvals
where applicable (Sections 2–6).
Installation
a) Install the system in accordance with the conditions of all relevant
authorities.
b) Develop a monitoring and reporting program as described in Section 5 so
that the performance of the system can be objectively assessed and adjusted
if necessary.
Operation and maintenance

a) Operate the system in accordance with best management practices and
licence conditions where applicable. Contact should be made with DEC or
local council and other regulatory authorities if design, process or
operational changes to the system are intended.
1
The EPA is a statutory body with specific powers under environment protection legislation. In
September 2003, the EPA became part of the Department of Environment and Conservation
(DEC).
1. Introduction 7
2. Site Considerations
When selecting a site for irrigation, it is fundamental to consider the
compatibility of surrounding land uses as well as the suitability of land for
irrigation, effluent storage and transport and other management
requirements.
Selecting a suitable site is important for successfully establishing an effluent
irrigation system that complies with the principles and guidelines set out in
this document. This section provides criteria for assessing a proposed
irrigation site, and discusses related issues important to the assessment of a
site. Effluent quality (Section 3) should also be considered when selecting a
site.
For irrigators who receive effluent on an ‘as needed’ basis (for example,
partial reuse schemes, Section 4.1) some of the site selection criteria, such as
the area of the storage facility might not apply.
See Section 7.2, Further Reading, for additional references on soils and site
suitability.
2.1 Land use conflicts

When planning an effluent irrigation system, it is essential to consider the
potential for land use conflict due to incompatibility with other land uses in
the locality. Nuisance caused by the generation of odour, dust or noise must
be considered and minimised to protect community amenity.
Activities that have the potential to significantly impact on the environment
and possibly create land use conflicts are generally subject to environmental
impact assessment procedures (Section 6). Consideration of these impacts is
particularly important for intensive animal industries such as piggeries,
feedlots, abattoirs and tanneries.
2.2 Selecting the site
Climate
The climate of the area is a major factor in determining the type of plants that
can be grown and the amount of irrigation water that can be applied. These
aspects are discussed in more detail in Section 5.
Preliminary investigations
Taking a staged approach to site selection can reduce the costs associated with
selecting a suitable site. The first stage could be to identify how much land is
likely to be needed by undertaking a preliminary water, nutrient, organic
matter or salt balance (Section 4) using the expected effluent quantity and
quality data. (Where the area to be irrigated is predetermined, e.g. an existing
golf course, this step may not be necessary). The preferred locality should also
be selected. This will usually be land located in close proximity to an existing

or proposed effluent source, but in some cases the availability of ‘suitable’
land can be used as a criteria for determining the location of a proposed
effluent producing activity.
Areas, which are likely to be unsuitable for irrigation, can be quickly
eliminated by:
• use of aerial photographs/available topographic maps to exclude steep,
rocky or poorly drained land (as described in Table 2.1)
• consultation with relevant government agencies (see Appendix 5).
Other technology such as electromagnetic surveys are also available to
identify potentially unsuitable land affected by salinity, seasonal or
permanent wetness, or shallow or excessively well drained soils (Table 2.2).
Preliminary soil investigations at representative sampling points include field
morphological descriptions and laboratory tests to identify the level of
salinity on samples representing soil depths up to 1m can differentiate
potentially suitable from non-suitable sites (Hardie & Hird 1998).
DIPNR can provide soil data cards to assist in documenting soil
morphological conditions (contact DIPNR regional offices). Data from these
can be incorporated into the NSW soil database. The Soil And Land
Information System (SALIS) is a database that contains descriptions of soils,
landscapes and other geographic features from across NSW. SALIS can be
used in a number of ways. It can be used to store and retrieve information
about soils, landforms and landscapes. You can query SALIS to find out if
there is any information about soil physical and chemical properties in any
part of NSW. You can also compare your own soil information with data
already stored in SALIS (DLWC 2000).
Detailed soil investigations

Detailed soil investigations should be confined to potentially suitable sites
identified from the preliminary investigations. The aim of the detailed survey
is to:
• confirm the suitability of the proposed irrigation site
• identify ‘moderate’ soil limitations that will require special management
practices (Table 2.2)
• set up a baseline for any monitoring program (Section 5).
These soil investigations require a more intensive sampling strategy than that
undertaken in preliminary investigations, robust enough to cover the
topographic and geographic complexity of the area and its land use history.
See Section 7.2, Further Reading, for additional information.
2. Site considerations 9
2.3 Soil properties
Soil properties that describe soils likely to be suitable for effluent irrigation
are shown in Table 2.2. Subsoil as well as surface soil properties need to be
considered and soil properties should be characterised for the appropriate soil
horizon. Where a soil property limitation (in Table 2.2) is considered ‘slight’,
no soil amelioration is generally required. If the property limitation is
considered “moderate”, some soil amelioration or a management response is
required, for example, application of gypsum to a sodic (dispersive) soil, lime
to an acidic soil, or careful irrigation of poorly drained or excessively well
drained soil. Where a limitation is considered ‘severe’, the site may be
unsuited to irrigation of some or all potential effluent products. For example,
if a soil has a low phosphorus sorption potential, the irrigation of effluent
with high phosphorus levels is unlikely to be sustainable.
Soil sodicity
Soil sodicity refers to the amount of exchangeable sodium (Na) cations
relative to other cations in the soil and is expressed in terms of exchangeable
sodium percentage (ESP).
Dispersion of soil or a poor soil structure may be associated with sodicity.
Exchangeable sodium acts as a mechanism for weakening the bonds of soil
aggregates creating a soil with poor structure that can impede water and
plant root movement into and through the soil. The degree to which
dispersion occurs is also dependent on the soil’s clay content and mineralogy,
pH, Ca/Mg ratio, electrical conductivity (EC), organic matter content and the
presence of iron and aluminium oxides.
Australian soil scientists generally agree that soils with an ESP of greater than
5 are at risk of showing the adverse structural impacts associated with
sodicity. Effluent with an SAR (sodium adsorption ratio) of greater than 6 is
likely to raise ESP in non sodic soils, whereas effluent with a SAR of less than
3 may lower ESP in sodic soils (see also Section 4.4).
Soil salinity
Soil salinity refers to the amount of dissolved salts in the soil solution. Soil
salinity levels are usually determined by measuring the EC of a soil
suspension, which estimates the concentration of soluble salts in the soil. The
soluble salts are likely to be the cations Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ and the anions Cl-,
SO42- and HCO3-. Effluent and other soluble fertiliser may also contribute
other ions such as K+, NH4+ and NO3- which are also plant nutrients. Effluent
or the combined effect of effluent and fertilisers may raise soluble salt levels
to the extent that they impede plant growth and/or create salt scalds thereby
increasing the potential for soil erosion.
However, in evaluating potential impacts on soil and groundwater salinity it
is important to acknowledge the role of plant uptake in removing salt from
the soil (see also Section 4.4).

The concentration in the soil at which salt is hazardous varies with soil texture
and plant species. An indicator of salt concentration is the electrical
conductivity of a water-saturated soil paste (ECe). This number may be
derived directly, or indirectly, by multiplying results from a 1 to 5 soil water
extract by an empirical soil texture factor (see Appendix 3). Where the ECe
(dS/m) of a soil is less than 2, effects on plants are mostly negligible; between
2 and 4, yields of `sensitive’ plants become restricted; between 4 and 8, yields
of many crops are affected; when the ECe exceeds 8 dS/m, only salt-tolerant
plants give satisfactory yields. Above 16 dS/m only very tolerant crops yield
satisfactorily.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity

The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the soil is an important soil
property for determining the suitability of a soil for irrigation. Soils with very
high Ksat (e.g. sand) may allow nutrient and salt from effluent to quickly
enter the groundwater. Soils with very low Ksat (typically unstructured
clayey soils) are prone to waterlogging.
Ksat varies down the soil profile. Assessments should be made of the layer
within the top 1m of soil that is likely to have the lowest Ksat (i.e. the layer
with the most clay and/or the least structure). There is a range of methods for
determining Ksat, and advice should be sought from suitably qualified
persons to ensure that a reliable method is selected.
Available water holding capacity

The available water holding capacity refers to the maximum amount of plant
available water that the soil can hold. Sandy soils and some clayey soils (with
low cation exchange capacities) typically have very low capacities.
Estimation of available water holding capacity is important for irrigation
scheduling purposes and can also be used if a daily water balance is used to
estimate land areas (Section 4.2).
Soil pH
Soil pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in the soil. It is
known to be related to the availability of plant macro and micro nutrients. For
most plants a pH range of between 6 and 7.5 (measured in calcium chloride)
maximises the availability of plant nutrients and hence the potential for plant
growth. Measurements of pH will vary depending on the field or laboratory
technique used. It is advisable to measure pH in calcium chloride to ensure a
consistent interpretation of results.
Cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of a soil is the total quantity of
exchangeable cations it can retain on its adsorption complex at a given pH. As
a general rule, soils with high CEC have good soil structure and are better at
mitigating any potential risks associated with the pH, nutrient, sodium, salt or
contaminant content of effluent. Addition of organic matter (which typically
has a high CEC) or the incorporation of a green manure crop (which will also
increase the soils organic matter content) may improve soils with a low CEC.
Exchangeable cations in soil include Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+ (exchangeable bases),
and H+ and Al3+ (exchangeable acidity). The other cations such as manganese,
iron, copper and zinc are usually present in amounts that do not contribute
significantly to the sum of cations on the exchange complex. It is therefore
common practice to measure the concentration of the five most abundant
cations and use these to measure the effective cation exchange capacity
(ECEC).
Emerson Aggregate Test (EAT)

The EAT is a test developed to measure the structural stability of a soil. Soils
with an EAT of 1 are likely to have the least stable structure (aggregates will
slake and disperse when wetted). Stable aggregates will usually have an EAT
of between 4 and 7. An EAT of 8 means that the soil is so stable that it cannot
be penetrated by plant roots. An EAT of 2 and 3 means that the soil has some
potential to slake and disperse. Additions of gypsum, lime or organic matter
can improve structural stability.
Soil phosphorus adsorption

Most Australian soils have the capacity to immobilise phosphorus (P) in soil
thereby making it unavailable for plant growth. Within a particular soil
profile this capacity can vary with depth. Land managers normally apply
additional phosphorus above plant requirements to overcome this problem.
In general, acidic soils with a high clay content that have formed in situ have a
very high capacity to adsorb P while sandy soils have a very low capacity.
Alluvial soils usually have a relatively low sorption capacity. All other soils
typically have a medium to high capacity, unless they occur on sites that have
been receiving high levels of P fertilisers or waste products over a number of
years.
If the effluent has a higher P content than can be absorbed by the growing
(and subsequently harvested) plant, then it will be necessary to estimate the P
sorption capacity of the soil. This step is carried out to determine the risk of P
leaving the irrigated site during the life of the irrigation scheme thereby
potentially contaminating ground and surface waters.
Advice should be sought from recognised soil scientists and laboratories as to
the best way to measure P sorption capacity. Account should be taken of the
volume of the soil mantle between the irrigation area and any groundwater
table or surface waterbody. It should also be noted that soils with a high
degree of pedality (or cracking soils) or major geological discontinuity could
act as a conduit for P rich effluent to enter a valuable water resource. The
form of P in the effluent and the pH of the soil may also affect the mobility of
P in soil.

2.4 Soil organic matter
Soils with a reasonably high level of organic matter (i.e. at least 2% by weight)
are desirable for effluent irrigation schemes. Organic matter encourages soil
microbial activity and increases cation exchange and water holding capacity
thereby buffering the potential adverse impacts associated with overloading
the soil temporarily with nutrients, effluent contaminants or water. Soil
organic matter can be increased by incorporating green crops or by adding
manures, composts or biosolids directly to the soil (taking into account any
addition to the nutrient budget for the site).
2.5 Acid sulfate soils

The presence of potential acid sulfate soils (ASS) in coastal areas can create
site limitations for effluent irrigation schemes. Activities undertaken in areas
likely to affect or use coastal sediments (e.g. use, excavate or disturb ASS for
dams and land forming works) warrant an assessment of the risk of exposing
ASS. For further information DIPNR hold ASS Risk Maps that identify the
risk that ASS will occur in coastal areas and the ASS Management Advisory
Committee has prepared an ASS Manual (see Stone, Ahern and & Blunden
1998) that provides guidance on assessment and management of the soils.
Local councils may also require development consent for ASS disturbance.
Table 2.1: Landform requirements for effluent irrigation systems

Limitation
2
Property 1 Nil or Slight Moderate Severe Restrictive Feature
Slope (%) (for

following irrigation
methods)
– flood/surface/ <1 1–3 >3

excess runoff and
underground
erosion risk
3 3
– sprinkler <6 6–12 > 12
3 3
– trickle/microspray < 10 10–20 > 20
Flooding none or rare Occasional frequent limited irrigation

opportunities
Landform crests, convex concave drainage lines erosion and seasonal

slopes and slopes and and incised waterlogging risk
plains foot-slopes channels
Surface rock Nil 0–5 >5 interferes with irrigation

outcrop (%) and/or cultivation
equipment; risk of runoff
Source: Based on Hardie and Hird (1998), NSW Agriculture, Organic Waste Recycling Unit
Notes: 1. Careful consideration should also be given to potential impacts on groundwater (see
2.6 Groundwater).
2. Sites with these properties are generally not suitable for irrigation.
3. Slopes over 12% may be acceptable provided runoff and erosion risks are identified in the
site selection process.
Table 2.2: Typical soil characteristics for effluent irrigation systems
Limitation
Property Nil or Slight Moderate Severe1 Restrictive Feature

2
Exchangeable sodium 0–5 5–10 > 10 structural degradation and
percentage (0–40 cm) waterlogging
Exchangeable sodium < 10 >10 _ structural degradation and

percentage (40–100 cm) waterlogging
Salinity measured as electrical <2 2–4 > 43 excess salt may restrict plant
conductivity (ECe) growth
(dS/m at 0–70 cm)
Salinity measured as electrical <4 4–8 > 83 excess salt may restrict plant
conductivity (ECe) growth, potential seasonal
(dS/m at 70–100 cm) groundwater rise
Depth to top of seasonal high > 34 0.5–34 < 0.5 poor aeration, restricts plant
water table (metres) growth, risk to groundwater5
Depth to bedrock or hardpan >1 0.5–1 < 0.5 restricts plant growth, excess
(metres) runoff, waterlogging
Saturated hydraulic conductivity 20–80 5–206 or <5 excess runoff, waterlogging,

(Ks, mm/h, 0-100 cm) >80 6 poor infiltration
Available water capacity > 100 < 100 6 – little plant-available water in
(AWC, mm/m) reserve, risk to groundwater
Soil pHCaCl2 (surface layer) > 6–7.5 3.57–6.0 < 3.5 reduces optimum plant
> 7.5 growth
Effective cation exchange > 15 3–158 <3 unable to hold plant nutrients
capacity (ECEC, cmol (+)/kg,
average 0–40 cm)
Emerson aggregate test 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 2, 3 1 Poor structure

(0–100cm)
Phosphorus (P) sorption high9 moderate9 Low unable to immobilise any

(kg/ha at total 0–100 cm) excess phosphorus
Source: Based on Hardie and Hird (1998), See also NSW Department of Primary Industries (2004)
Notes: 1. Sites with these properties are unlikely to be suitable for irrigation of some or all effluent products.
2. Application of gypsum or lime may be required to maintain long-term site sustainability.
3. Some high EC soils containing calcium ‘salts’ are not necessarily considered ‘severe’.
4. Where unable to excavate to 3m, local knowledge and absence of indications of water table to the
depth of sampling (1m) should be used.
5. Criteria are set primarily for assessing site suitability for plant growth. Presence of a shallow soil
water table may indicate soil conditions that favour movement of nutrients and contaminants into
groundwater. In such cases, careful consideration should be given to quality and potential impacts
on groundwater (see 2.6 Groundwater).
6. Careful irrigation scheduling and good irrigation practices will be required to maintain site
sustainability.
7. Soil pH may need to be increased to improve plant growth. Where effluent is alkaline or lime is
available, opportunities exist to raise pH. If acid sulfate soil is present, site-specific specialist
advice should be obtained.
8. Soil may become more sodic with effluent irrigation. In some cases, however, this soil property
may be ameliorated with addition of a calcium source.
9. Soils with medium to high phosphorus sorption capacity can adsorb excess phosphorus not taken
up by plants. The effectiveness of this depends not only on the sorption capacity but also, the
depth and permeability of the soil. A nutrient budget must be undertaken (see Section 4.3).

2.6 Groundwater
The NSW State Groundwater Quality Protection Policy (DLWC 1998) and the
framework NSW State Groundwater Policy (DLWC 1997) should be consulted
for the principles and issues to be considered relating to groundwaters.
The quality of the underlying groundwater must not be downgraded to the
extent that the resource is not able to support its most sensitive beneficial use.
There is a risk that underlying groundwater may be downgraded as a result
of irrigation with effluent. These risks are greatest when effluent with high
quantities of nutrients, salt, pathogens or other contaminants is being
irrigated and/or where the groundwater has a current or potential beneficial
use (e.g. used for drinking water or flows to a groundwater dependent
ecosystem).
These risks can be minimised by:
• avoiding areas where the groundwater has a current or potential beneficial
use, is close to the soil surface or where there is evidence of dryland
salinity
• ensuring that the plant/soil mantle above the groundwater table is
capable of immobilising any potential contaminants in the effluent.
Groundwater vulnerability
Environmental impact assessment for groundwaters should be based on the
principles set out in the National Water Quality Management Strategy: Guidelines
for Groundwater Protection in Australia (ARMCANZ & ANZECC 1995) and the
NSW State Groundwater Policy.
DIPNR have published groundwater availability/vulnerability maps that
highlight areas that are at risk due to effluent irrigation. Groundwater
investigations should take into account current groundwater chemistry and
condition and the quality and quantity of the effluent to be irrigated; for
example, the quality of the irrigation water should not exacerbate rising
salinity in the watertable.
Where supporting technical advice has not been obtained, effluent should not
be applied to land where the depth to groundwater table is considered to be
less than 10 metres or where the irrigation area is located less than 1000
metres from a town water supply bore.
In areas subject to existing or potential problems, such as rising groundwater
tables or dryland salinity, or where groundwater is a direct conduit
discharging to surface waters, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure
that the effluent irrigation system does not exacerbate these problems.
The following are appropriate ways to protect groundwater from impacts of
effluent irrigation.
• Careful selection of suitable sites for irrigation.
• Implementation of a well-structured management plan that includes,
details of deficit irrigation scheduling, monitoring soil moisture content
and strategies to suspend irrigation when soil moisture content is high.
• Selection of areas where the presence of one or more impervious
geological strata (for example, a thick layer of compacted clay) above the
groundwater aquifer can prevent deep percolation from reaching the
aquifer.
• In the absence of protective geological strata, an adequate depth to the
normal watertable at or near the irrigation site will usually be needed for
groundwater with current or potential beneficial uses. On some
moderately permeable soils, a minimum depth of 15 metres may be
required.
On sites with identified risks to groundwater, baseline groundwater
chemistry should be established as a basis for assessing the extent of potential
impacts and to develop a monitoring program, if required. Regular
groundwater monitoring is required for effluent irrigation systems that
operate in a location where they pose a threat to groundwater.
Water quality objectives for the groundwater (i.e. water quality needed to
protect beneficial uses of groundwater) also should be considered. See also
Section 4.10 Separation Distances and Management of Buffer Zones.
2.7 Surface water

The quality of streams and rivers in the catchment of an effluent irrigation
scheme must not be downgraded (i.e. relevant water quality objectives need
to be taken into account). There is a risk that surface waters may be degraded
by poorly designed or managed effluent irrigation schemes, particularly
where effluent with high quantities of nutrients, salt, pathogens or other
contaminants is being irrigated. Runoff events into streams are a common
cause of fish kills. Fish are particularly sensitive to oxygen depletion,
ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, sulphur dioxide and organochlorine pesticides.
Potential impacts on current and future downstream water users and
resources need to be considered, e.g. downstream aquaculture and fishery
industries.
These risks can be minimised by ensuring that:
• irrigation of moderate to high strength effluents in close proximity to
surface waters is well designed and managed
• the plant/soil mantle within and down-gradient of the effluent irrigation
area is capable of immobilising any potential contaminants in the effluent
• there is an adequate buffer zone between the irrigation area and the
surface waterbody (Section 4.10)
• runoff control structures within the irrigation area are adequate
(Section 5.4).

On sites with identified risks to surface waters, baseline surface water
chemistry may need to be established. Regular surface water monitoring is
required for effluent irrigation systems that operate in a location where they
pose a threat to surface waters (Section 5.3).
2.8 Flood potential

Sites prone to flooding can be suitable for effluent irrigation, but only where
effluent storage facilities and other equipment such as pumps are adequately
protected. Any drainage lines constructed within the floodplain may need to
be protected against pollution from the applied effluent. This might require
the construction of diversion banks and channels. Approval must be obtained
from the DIPNR before constructing flood diversion structures.
3. Effluent Quality and Irrigation Considerations
Effluent contains valuable resources, such as organic matter and nutrients,
however, it also can contain concentrations of chemical contaminants, salts
and pathogens that are potentially detrimental to soils or plant growth
and/or pose a risk to the wider environment or public health. The
constituents of effluent are discussed in general in this section. How effluent
quality impacts on the design of irrigation systems is discussed in Section 4.
When designing a wastewater treatment system, effluent quality needed to
ensure a sustainable irrigation system will influence the effluent treatment
needed and the design and operation of the irrigation system.
3.1 Classification of effluent for environmental management

Classification of effluent as low, medium or high strength according to its
concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, BOD5 ,TDS, and other potential
contaminants is a first step in determining environmental management issues
including:
• the likely magnitude of environmental risks associated with effluent
irrigation
• appropriate runoff and discharge controls.
The effluent generator should initially characterise the quality of the effluent
for environmental issues based on Table 3.1. For an effluent to fall within a
certain class, all constituents must be within the specified concentration range.
However, where an effluent falls into a class by a nominal amount, the design
overflow frequency may be interpolated proportionally. Where the
characteristics of a particular effluent mean that some ions could be in effect
‘double counted’ then those ions could be discounted from the relevant
parameter. However, care must be taken to ensure that important
environmental impacts such as ionic effects are not underestimated. For
example, in an effluent with high nitrogen, the amount of nitrogen could be
discounted from total dissolved solids.
Where industries can establish through other means (e.g. knowledge of inputs
into the wastewater stream) that the likelihood of one or more of the
constituents identified in Table 3.1 is low, then there may be no need to
establish the value by laboratory analysis.
Other methods for ensuring that pollution of waters does not occur, or licence
conditions are met, can be proposed for a particular site. Other approaches
should be based on a technically sound approach taking into account effluent
characteristics, the water balance for the site, relevant environmental
objectives for any receiving water, existing ambient water quality and the
conditions under which a discharge is likely to occur. Monitoring is likely to
be required to ensure that predicted performance is achieved.
Where reuse of effluent by irrigation is used as a method of controlling
discharges of pollutants to the environment, the appropriate size of wet

weather storage is, in part, determined by effluent strength (Section 4).
Proposed management practices which would improve the quality of effluent
discharge or runoff, before it leaves a site (e.g. further treatment before
effluent moves offsite) also may be considered in determining the storage and
runoff requirements described in Section 4.2.
By demonstrating that the strength of any effluent that leaves the site
boundary (via a designed overflow or discharge point), is of a lower strength
than the supplied or stored effluent (e.g. by further treating the effluent), then
the guidelines associated with the lower strength classes for determining the
appropriate size of wet weather storage may be used. This provides flexibility
in meeting the required environmental and public health objectives. The
effectiveness of any management practices proposed to reduce effluent
strength must be demonstrated with the same technical rigour as other
design, planning and operational elements of the scheme.
Water from municipal sewage treatment plants is likely to be low strength,
whereas untreated effluent from intensive animal industries is likely to be
medium to high strength. Some industries may produce more than one class
of effluent.
Table 3.1: Classification of effluent for environmental management

1
Strength (average concentration mg/L)
2
Constituent Low Medium High
Total nitrogen <50 50–100 >100
Total phosphorus <10 10–20 >20
BOD5 <40 40–1,500 >1,500

3
TDS <600 600–1,000 >1,000–2,500
4
Other pollutants Effluent with more than five times the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) long-
(e.g. metals, term water quality trigger values for irrigation waters must be considered high
pesticides) strength for the purpose of establishing a strength class for runoff and discharge
controls and will require close examination to ensure soil is not contaminated.
Grease and oil Effluent with more than 1,500 mg/L of grease and oil must be considered high
strength and irrigation rates and practices must be managed to ensure soil and
vegetation is not damaged.
Notes: 1. Average concentrations established from a minimum of 12 representative samples, collected

at regular intervals over a year.
2. Effluent generated by municipal sewage treatment plants with secondary treatment will
generally be considered to be low strength.
3. Refer to Section 3.7 for relationship of TDS to EC.
4. Criteria of five times the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) long-term irrigation criteria have
been selected as nominal criteria at which the level of those contaminants warrants a higher
level of management of the reuse system for the following reasons. This criteria when
applied to 1 ML/d of effluent irrigated over 100 hectares would take approximately 10 years
for soil contaminant levels in the top 15 cm of soil to rise to near the soil contaminant criteria
for Cadmium, Chromium and Zinc, which are the most sensitive heavy metal pollutants in
this scenario. This criteria is also approximately half the value for Nickel, Mercury, Beryllium
and Arsenic at which the effluent would be considered a liquid waste and would need to be
managed and disposed of according to the DEC's Environmental Guidelines for the
Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Waste (EPA 1999a).
3. Effluent quality and irrigation considerations 19

This Guideline or the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New
Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality may not provide
guidance for all potential environmental pollutants. The onus is on the
effluent producer to discuss all potential pollutants in their effluent with DEC
or local council, so that an appropriate `strength’ classification can be made
for the effluent. Effluent producers should also determine if effluent is a
controlled aqueous waste as defined by DEC’s Environmental Guidelines:
Assessment, Classification & Management of Liquid & Non-Liquid Wastes (EPA
1999a).
The concentration of pathogens is also an important effluent quality
consideration in terms of public health, which affects the way effluent should
be reused and managed on-site. Pathogens in effluent are discussed in Section
3.10, Treatment and Disinfection. Consideration of effluent quality in terms of
its end use is important when considering potential risks to public health.
Appendix 1 applies to the spray application of sewage effluent but provides a
general guide to the types of end uses with different levels of risk to human
health.
3.2 Organic content

Organic matter is present in many effluents, and when applied at an
appropriate rate, can contribute to soil fertility.
Ordinarily, concentrations are low enough to preclude short-term detrimental
effects on the soil or vegetation. Continued overloading with organic matter
can physically clog soil pores, favour anaerobic soil microbes and lead to
slimy bacterial scum coating the soil, blocking pores and closing up cracks.
These changes could limit the effective life of the application site. Total
organic loading rates can greatly influence liquid loading rates and the length
of the resting period between applications required for re-aeration of the soil
and to encourage bacterial die-off (see Section 4).
Organic matter in effluent can be measured as biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), or total organic carbon (TOC). It is
present in the dissolved form as well as in the form of suspended and
colloidal solids.
3.3 Solids
Care must be taken if effluent has high concentrations of solids (non-filtrable
residues). These may coat leaf surfaces or obstruct some types of sprinkler
nozzles. It may be necessary to reduce the concentration of solids to avoid
operational problems with any irrigation scheme.
Suspended solids can provide a substrate for other pollutants such as heavy
metal and pathogens, therefore suspended solids or turbidity are measures of
water treatment plant effectiveness when a high quality effluent is required.
High turbidity can decrease the effectiveness of disinfection involving
chlorine or ultra violet light.

3.4 Nutrients
Nutrients in effluent such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium,
sulfur and calcium are generally beneficial to plant growth. Nitrogen,
phosphorus and sulfur need not be removed from effluent where it can be
demonstrated that the land management system effectively uses these
nutrients both in the short and long term.
To characterise the nutrient concentrations in the source of effluent, real
monitoring data should be used, when available (e.g. detailed monitoring
data on sewage treatment plant performance over a number of seasons).
Optimal performance of treatment processes should not be assumed and a
conservative estimate of treatment effectiveness will help to ensure that
ground and surface waters are not contaminated.
When selecting the crop to be irrigated, information on plant nutrient
requirements must be obtained. This includes not only total plant
requirements but also requirements at critical plant growth periods (e.g.
fruiting or flowering). The extent of nutrient recycling for the particular land
management system must also be established. Harvesting crops and
removing them offsite for ‘green chop’ or hay results in almost no return of
nutrients to the site. But if pasture is grazed, nutrients are returned to the soil
through faeces. Grass mown without catchers returns nutrient to the site and
deciduous horticultural crops and tree plantations return nutrients when their
leaves fall. These nutrient returns must be accounted for in nutrient mass
balance calculations (see Section 4.3).
Nitrogen
Nitrogen (N) can be present in organic and mineral forms, the latter including
gaseous (N2), ammonia (NH3) ammonium (NH4+), nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-)
and urea (NH2CONH2). The relative amount of each of these forms depends
on the original constitution of the wastewater, and the treatment and
stabilisation processes used.
Total nitrogen concentrations in effluent from municipal sewage treatment
plants are generally between 5 and 50 mg/L. Effluent from rural and food
processing industries may contain much higher concentrations of nitrogen
with total nitrogen in effluent from intensive animal industries likely to vary
between 50 and 750 mg/L.
Mineral forms of nitrogen are readily transformed into other mineral forms.
Some mineral forms such as nitrate, nitrite and ammonia can be taken up by
plants. Nitrate is also readily leached to groundwater. High concentrations of
nitrate make waters unsuitable for stock and domestic water supplies, or can
nourish unwanted plants and algae. N2 and NH3 can be lost to the atmosphere
in gaseous form. It is estimated that between 15% (cool climates) and 25%
(warm climates) of applied nitrogen in the form of ammonia can be lost to the
atmosphere, with up to 50% volatilised under optimal conditions (e.g. fine
spray irrigation in hot and low humidity climates), (see also the nitrogen
balance sub-section in Section 4.3, Nutrient Loading Rates).

Interactions between organic nitrogen, plant growth and the environment are
much slower than for most mineral forms. Organic nitrogen is converted to
ammonium and nitrate through mineralisation processes. Table 3.2 shows the
estimated mineralisation rates of organic nitrogen in raw wastewater sludge
in soil. Effluent can have higher rates in similar soil environments,
particularly in the first year. The remaining nitrogen is retained in residual
humus, which will continue to decompose and then release inorganic forms of
nitrogen. The rate of mineralisation is determined by the initial organic
nitrogen and carbon concentrations and by microbial, soil and climatic
conditions, but decreases markedly with time. By the fourth or fifth year, only
a very small amount, if any, of the original organic nitrogen remains. In most
irrigation systems, the organic nitrogen removed through mineralisation is
continually replaced by the application of fresh effluent.
Nitrate can be converted to nitrogen gas through the process of
denitrification. In soils, the rate of this process is dependent on a number of
complex factors including the presence of oxygen, availability of water and
carbon sources, and temperature. Denitrification rates are highly variable and
under most effluent irrigation conditions the amount of nitrogen lost in this
manner is not likely to be significant.
Gaseous losses of nitrogen and the differential rates of movement of the
various nitrogen forms must be taken into account when developing nutrient
budgets (Section 4). Another factor to consider is that leguminous crops have
a lower nitrogen demand (but will absorb N if it is supplied).
Table 3.2: Mineralisation of organic nitrogen in wastewater sludge and

effluent in soil
% original organic nitrogen mineralised
At end of year Raw wastewater sludge1 Effluent (estimated)

st
1 year after application 40 60
nd
rd
th
th
5 and subsequent years 3 –
Source: Younos (1987).
Phosphorus
Phosphorus (P) concentrations in municipal sewage plants are between 0.5
and 10 mg/L depending on the extent of P removal processes used. Effluent
from intensive animal industries and food processing may contain much
higher levels of P. For example, total P loads in wastewater from intensive
animal industries are likely to vary between 10 and 500 mg/L.
Phosphorus contained in effluent exists in many forms but is normally
expressed as total P. The orthophosphates (H2PO4-, HPO42- and PO43-) are

available immediately for biophysical reactions in the plant-soil-water system.
The polyphosphates are broken down more slowly to orthophosphates.
Organic phosphates are broken down biologically to polyphosphates and
then to orthophosphates.
The major P removal mechanisms in effluent irrigation systems are uptake by
vegetation, and soil sorption by chemical precipitation and adsorption to soil
particles.
Soil sorption of P (P sorption capacity) is an immobilisation reaction that
renders phosphorus unavailable for plant uptake and varies widely from low
levels in sandy soils to high levels in strongly weathered clay soils. Soil
sorption capacity can be taken into account when developing a nutrient
budget.
Further details on P sorption and information that relates phosphorus
loadings to the design of irrigation systems are presented in Section 4.
Potassium
Effluent contains potassium, particularly animal effluents and effluent from
wool scouring plants. While potassium is an essential nutrient for healthy
plant growth, it contributes to the salinity of effluent and in excess can
adversely affect the uptake of other nutrients by plants, soil stability and
animal health. For example, grass tetany is a condition in dairy cattle
associated with imbalances of potassium and magnesium through ingestion
of fodder and soil. Salt balances should be determined for all proposed
effluent irrigation schemes to ensure that management processes are in place
to avoid potassium accumulation. More information on salt balances and
salinity is given in Sections 3.7 and 4.4.
Proposals to apply effluent with known high concentrations of potassium
such as wool scour effluent should also refer to ARMCANZ and ANZECC
(1999) Effluent Management Guidelines for Aqueous Wool Scouring and
Carbonising (see Further Reading).
3.5 pH
Effluent with a pH between 5 and 8.5 is generally acceptable for use in
irrigation. If the effluent is very acidic (pH less than 5), or very alkaline (pH
greater than 8.5), it may need to be neutralised before application as soil pH
affects the availability of nutrients and other elements to plants.
3.6 Chemical contaminants

Effluent may contain potentially undesirable chemical contaminants,
including some metal and chlorinated organic compounds. These
contaminants could have an adverse effect on soil and plants if present in
elevated concentrations. Maximum loadings for heavy metals and
chlorinated organic compounds in topsoil are discussed in Section 4.

Where any chemical compound in effluent exceed limits established by
ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Water Quality Guidelines for irrigation, the
background level of the chemical compound should be established in soil. In
addition, the level of build up of the compound in the soil should be
established through a monitoring program (Section 5).
In addition to the above, crops must be selected so that any contaminants,
such as heavy metals, do not cause the crop to become unsuitable for human
or animal consumption.
Industrial wastewaters containing more than trace amounts of substances
such as heavy metals, solvents, chlorinated organic chemicals, agricultural
chemical residues or petrochemicals are likely to be classified as a controlled
liquid waste and therefore are not suitable for irrigation. Refer to DEC’s
and Non-Liquid Wastes (EPA 1999a) for information on classification of liquid
wastes. Wastes that are classified as hazardous, Group A, Group B or Group
C, will require an environment protection licence for their generation, storage,
treatment or transport.
Metals
Although some metals are essential for plant growth, many are toxic at
elevated concentrations and their toxicity may be increased if soil is acidic.
Therefore, it is important to establish the average concentrations of metals in
irrigation effluent to avoid irreversibly contaminating the irrigation site in the
long term.
ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Water Quality Guidelines (for irrigation)
identify the maximum concentrations of metals in irrigation waters
considered acceptable for continuous use. If concentrations of one or more
metals exceed these levels (based on appropriate sampling), then the
proponent must examine the potential impact of the metal on the soil and the
land management system. Calculations must be made to determine the length
of time the effluent can be applied before soil concentrations exceed guideline
limits (see Section 4.6 and cumulative concentration limit triggers in ANZECC
and ARMCANZ (2000)). The land management system must be able to
tolerate the higher levels of metal without detrimental effects.
It is important to regularly monitor the levels of metals which are risk factors
in effluent to ensure that it is managed appropriately or as a means of
reviewing estimates of the soil/plants capability of immobilising these. Soil
and plant monitoring may also be required where metal levels exceed
recommended levels for irrigation waters. Monitoring programs in these
situations will need to be tailored to evaluate the risk posed by the metal or
contaminant for the agronomic system in use. ANZECC and ARMCANZ
(2000) Water Quality Guidelines (for irrigation) should be consulted for the
context in which the criteria in Table 3.3 should be applied. Further advice is
provided in Section 5.3 Monitoring Systems.

Table 3.3: Trigger values for metals in irrigation effluent for long term use on
all soil types (up to 100 years)1
Total concentration
Metal (mg/L) Comments
Aluminium 5.0 High toxicity in acid soils. Not a

concern if pH of soil is above 6.5.
Arsenic 0.1
Beryllium 0.1
Cadmium 0.01 Higher toxicity in acid soils
Chromium VI 0.1
Cobalt 0.05
Copper 0.2
Iron 0.2
Lead 2
Lithium 2.5 Citrus: 0.075 mg/L
Manganese 0.2
Mercury 0.002
Molybdenum 0.01
Nickel 0.2
Selenium 0.02
Zinc 2.0 1 mg/L recommended for sandy soil

below pH 6
Source: ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) (Refer to any current Australian Water Quality Guidelines
as they are updated and endorsed for use in NSW).
Note: 1. Trigger values should only be used in conjunction with information on each individual
element and the potential for offsite transport of contaminants (see ANZECC &
ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 3, Section 9.2.5). See also short-term use trigger values (up to
20 years) and cumulative contaminant loading limit triggers in ANZECC and ARMCANZ
(2000), Volume 1, Table 4.2.10.
Synthetic organic compounds

Several classes of organic compounds can be found in effluent, including
insecticides. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides (such as dieldrin, heptachlor and
chlordane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are known to persist in the
environment. Many organic compounds have had wide commercial use in
Australia. The rate of decay of the organochlorines can vary from place to
place, because organic compounds are affected by climate and soil
characteristics. Organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides tend to be
more readily broken down (hydrolysed) and are less persistent than OC
pesticides.
Trace concentrations of these chemicals may be found in effluent from
municipal sewage treatment plants and they can be present in effluent from
other industries. Many species of wildlife are sensitive to insecticide

concentrations that have little or no effect on crops or other plants. One of the
major concerns about insecticides in effluent irrigation, therefore, is the
contamination of surface and groundwater, and the possible adverse effect on
wildlife or soil biosystems that use this water.
It is advisable to conduct periodic monitoring of effluent for the presence of
organic compounds. They have caused several contamination crises in
Australia’s export beef trade during the 1980s and 1990s. Their detection and
management is essential for effluent reuse on grazing land.
The total concentration of these organic compounds in effluent should be less
than 0.001 mg/l. The concentrations of organic compounds in soil to be
irrigated should be established before effluent is applied to minimise the
introduction of organic compounds into the food chain. Organic compounds
such as phenols and surfactants can be toxic to essential soil organisms. They
are usually present in effluent from municipal sewage treatment plants at low
concentrations. In industrial effluent they can be present at high
concentrations
Herbicides
Herbicides are harmful to plants. Phenoxyacid herbicides, such as 2,4-D and
its derivatives, are widely used for weed control. It is therefore possible for
these compounds to be in effluent. They degrade rapidly in soil, but can
persist in effluent. Where there is a risk that herbicide is present in the
effluent, it is advisable to conduct periodic monitoring of effluent for the
presence of herbicides as these may interfere with plant growth. See further
guidance in ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 1, Section 4.2.8.
3.7 Mineral salts

Effluent contains dissolved mineral salts, including sodium, calcium,
potassium, magnesium, boron, chloride, sulfate, carbonate and bicarbonate.
Most salts are present in effluent as dissolved ions (charged particles), which
can conduct electric current. Irrigating effluent with high electrical
conductivity (EC) (or total dissolved solids) concentrations may result in soil
salinity.
To assess the salinity and sodicity of water for irrigation use (Section 2.3), a
number of interactive factors must be considered. These include: irrigation
water quality; soil properties; plant salt tolerance; climate; landscape
(including geological and hydrological features); and water and soil
management (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000).
A primary purpose of measuring the EC of irrigation water is to calculate the
average root zone salinity, one of the critical measurements used in salinity
assessment and the evaluation of plant salt tolerance. Salinity levels also need
to be assessed and monitored in relation to potential impacts on soil structure
and on surface and ground water quality from discharges, runoff and
leaching.

Other factors that need to be taken into account when identifying salinity risk
(further discussed in Section 4) include the:
• extent to which effluent will satisfy the plants total water requirement
• ease with which excess salt may leach through the soil
• sensitivity to additions of salt of any groundwater table below the plant
root zone
• relative amounts of plant nutrients in the salt load
• effectiveness of the crop management system in taking up the plant
nutrient load
• types of salts and their relative environmental risks
• average rainfall of the site.
A preliminary water salinity rating can be assigned to irrigation waters based
on EC (Table 3.4). These ratings provide only a general guide and are not
intended to be used on their own to define the suitability of irrigation water.
As emphasised, other factors such as soil characteristics, climate, plant species
and irrigation management must be considered.
Table 3.4: General irrigation water salinity ratings based on electrical

conductivity
EC (dS/m) Water salinity rating Plant suitability
<0.65 Very low Sensitive crops
0.65−1.3 Low Moderately sensitive crops
1.3−2.9 Medium Moderately tolerant crops
2.9−5.2 High Tolerant crops
5.2−8.1 Very high Very tolerant crops
>8.1 Extreme Generally too saline
Source: Adapted from DNR (1997), cited in ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000).
The term ‘total dissolved solids’ (TDS) is commonly used to express the
combined concentration of salts in mg/L. TDS in mg/L may be estimated by
measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) of the effluent, in dS/m and
multiplying by an empirical factor ranging from 550–900. Conversely, the EC
at 25oC, expressed in units of dS/m, is calculated (with an error of within
about 10%) by multiplying TDS, in mg/L, by 0.00155. When converting, the
correct conversion factor should be established by measuring both properties
at the commencement of any irrigation scheme.
See ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000 Volume 3, Section 9.2.3 for
comprehensive information on sustainable irrigation practice in relation to the
affects of salinity.

3.8 Specific ions
The major ions that need to be considered when effluent is used for irrigation
are chloride, sodium, bicarbonate and boron. See also ANZECC &
ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 3, Section 9.2.4 for further guidance.
Sodium
Sodium salts are of particular concern, as excessive sodium levels relative to
calcium and magnesium can adversely affect plant growth, soil structure and
permeability. As discussed in Section 2.3, sodicity is a condition that degrades
soil properties by making the soil more dispersible and erodible, restricting
water entry and reducing hydraulic conductivity (the ability of the soil to
conduct water). These factors also limit leaching so that salt accumulates over
long periods of time, giving rise to saline subsoils. Furthermore, a soil with
increased dispersibility becomes more susceptible to erosion by water and
wind.
Both the sodium concentration and the sodium adsorption ratio of effluent
must be determined.
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is the relative proportion of sodium ions (Na+)
to both calcium ions (Ca2+) and magnesium ions (Mg2+) as shown in
Equation 1.
Equation 1: Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)
SAR = [Na+] / (([Ca2+] + [Mg2+])/2)1/2

Where:
Na = sodium ion concentration (conc.) (meq/L) = (mg/L in effluent)/22.99
Ca = calcium ion conc. (meq/L) = (mg/L in effluent)/(40.08 x 0.5)
Mg = magnesium ion conc. (meq/L) = (mg/L in effluent)/(24.32 x 0.5)
The effects of sodium on different plants are given in the ANZECC and
ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 3, Section 9.2.4.3.
Figure 3.1 shows the general relationships that can be established for many
soils which indicate the combination of irrigation water EC and SAR where
these dispersion problems are most likely to occur.

Figure 3.1: Relationship between SAR
and EC of irrigation water for prediction
of soil structural stability
Source: Adapted from DNR (1997), cited in ANZECC

and ARMCANZ (2000).
Water compositions that occur to the right of the equilibrium lines (in Figure
3.1) are considered satisfactory for use, provided the SAR is not so high that
severe dispersion of the surface soil water will occur following rainfall. Water
quality that falls to the left of the solid line is likely to induce degradation of
soil structure and corrective management will be required (e.g. application of
lime or gypsum). Water that falls between the lines is of marginal quality and
should be treated with caution and specifically managed with reference to soil
properties.
Soil permeability and aeration problems can occur when it is irrigated with
water that has a SAR above 6. There is evidence that these problems may
increase with an increasing ratio of magnesium to calcium. Soils with a low
cation exchange capacity will become sodic more quickly than soils with high
CECs. These latter soils may become sodic with effluent SARs of between 3
and 6. Where effluent SAR is high, calcium in the form of lime, gypsum, ash
or organic matter can be applied to the irrigated soil to counteract the
potential negative impacts on soil structure.
Chloride and chlorine

Chloride is essential to plant growth. In excess, however, it can be toxic (see
ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000 (Volume 3, Section 9.2.4.2) for levels of
chloride in effluent that can affect plant growth). In general, most woody
plant species including eucalypt and pine plantations, stone fruit, citrus and
avocados are sensitive to relatively low concentrations of chloride, whereas
most vegetable, grain, forage and fibre crops are less sensitive.

Chloride damage to plants can occur in two ways. First, the chloride ion can
be taken up by the roots and moved upwards to accumulate in the leaves.
Excessive accumulation can cause burning of leaf tips or margins, bronzing
and premature yellowing of leaves. Second, direct foliar absorption of
chloride from sprinkler irrigation can cause damage especially on fruit trees,
which are more sensitive. Generally, these effects are minimised with night
applications and when water is applied at a rapid continuous rate, providing
that care is taken to prevent soil erosion.
Chlorine may be added to some effluent to ensure a residual disinfection
process if effluent is being delivered through long pipes. Chlorine levels in
excess of 1 mg/L may affect some sensitive horticultural crops, nursery plants
and cut flowers. For other crops it is likely that levels up to 5 mg/L would be
acceptable.
Alkalinity
Except when applied to soils that are strongly acidic, highly alkaline effluent
can adversely affect the availability and uptake by plants of calcium,
magnesium and some trace elements by increasing the soil pH to levels
greater than 7.5. At high pH, calcium, for example, can be precipitated as a
salt. This loss of calcium accentuates the imbalance of exchangeable ions in
favour of sodium, increasing the soils exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP).
With time, this process will have a detrimental effect on soil structure, and
will reduce the permeability of the soil.
Bicarbonate
High concentrations of bicarbonate in effluent can lead to a high concentration
of bicarbonate in the soil water where it may be concentrated through the
process of evapotranspiration. There is then an increased tendency for calcium
and magnesium to precipitate as insoluble salts. Over time, this reduction in
available calcium and magnesium will result in an increased SAR, which can
adversely affect soil structure and could cause a sodium hazard.
Boron
Boron is an essential micro-nutrient for plants, however, at high
concentrations it can be toxic (see ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 3,
Section 9.2.5.6). It is also likely to remain in the soil solution and move into the
groundwater because soils have a very limited capacity to absorb boron.
Fluoride
Fluoride is contained naturally in soils and in fresh water, but excess intake in
plant material or soil by grazing cattle has detrimental effects on their health.
Fluoride may be present in effluent and has the potential to bind to and
accumulate in soils irrigated with effluent over extended periods. However,
there are insufficient data from Australian soils to prescribe soil loading limits
or to determine bioavailability (ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000). Stock health
monitoring procedures for effluent irrigation schemes should include checks

for symptoms of excess fluoride in animals grazing treated paddocks and any
suspect animals referred to the NSW Department of Primary Industries.
3.9 Oil and grease

Oil and grease in effluent can block irrigation systems, and more importantly
block soil pores subsequently causing anaerobic conditions in the soil which will
both reduce plant growth and potentially create odours. The rate of
decomposition of oil and grease depends on soil and climatic conditions as well
as the nature of the oil/grease product. Well-aerated soils in warm humid
climates maximise the break down of oil and grease.
3.10 Treatment and disinfection

The major risk associated with human or animal contact with effluent are
from infection by microorganisms, such as bacteria (e.g. Salmonellae), viruses
(e.g. Hepatitis sp.), protozoa (e.g. Giardia and Crytosporidium) or helminths
(tape worms). The risks to humans and the risk to animals are greatest when
the effluent contains pathogens derived from the same species of animals.
However, some pathogens (e.g. Cryptosporidium parvum and the helminth
Taenia saginata) can infect both humans and animals and appropriate
precautions must be taken.
Populations of microorganisms in wastewater are reduced when required,
through the treatment process, including screening, ponding, filtration,
artificial wetlands, and chlorine, ozone and ultraviolet treatments. The likely
level of pathogens in the final effluent product is assessed by knowledge of
the specific treatment processes and by measurement of indicator organisms
such as faecal (or thermotolerant) coliforms.
The levels of treatment of effluent required depends on the end use of the
plant being irrigated (e.g. a fresh food crop is more sensitive than a tree crop
grown for timber); whether or not humans or animals can be excluded from
the irrigation area for a period of time (withholding period); and the potential
for the pathogens in the effluent to infect humans or any animals.
NSW Health should be consulted in regard to the level of treatment of
effluent to be achieved when public health could be at risk through contact
with irrigated effluent or products that have been produced with irrigated
effluent. Advice also should be sought from the NSW Department of Primary
Industries on levels of protection required to protect animal health. Levels of
disinfection should be similar to those in Appendix 1 (which apply to spray
irrigation of municipal sewage effluent) to achieve the same end-point criteria
(depending on the end use of the effluent).
The provision of safeguards and controls (barriers) in the design and
operation of the irrigation scheme may also be considered when determining
the appropriate level of treatment for a proposed application. Risks can be
mitigated by provision of barriers, such as reliable treatment processes;
withholding periods; buffer zones between irrigation sites and public areas or
sensitive water bodies; effluent application controls (e.g. to prevent spray
drift); and restrictions on crops that may be irrigated. Surface pooling of

effluent should be avoided as it may increase the risk of transmission of
diseases (and chemical residues) to grazing animals, pets, birds and native
animals.
Municipal sewage effluent

Municipal sewage effluent potentially contains large numbers of pathogens
with the ability to infect humans. A number of disinfection treatments are
available (including chlorine, ozone, UV radiation and membrane filtration to
reduce pathogen levels). Properly applied, they are capable of reducing
pathogens (as indicated by thermotolerant coliform or numbers) to acceptable
levels for effluent irrigation (see Appendix 1).
Proposals for effluent irrigation systems where disinfection is necessary must
include information on the scope and reliability of the proposed disinfection
technique to be used. The latter should include an explanation of any
limitations and means of demonstrating performance associated with the
process chosen.
Because there are potential health and environmental risks associated with the
use of effluent, DEC, in consultation with NSW Health, has carefully outlined
the circumstances and conditions under which such schemes should operate.
Appendix 1 outlines the treatment, disinfection and irrigation requirements
when using treated sewage effluent for spray irrigating recreation areas and
land used for landscaping, agriculture, forestry, turf and crops. These
requirements are based on national Guidelines for Sewage Systems—
Reclaimed Water (ARMCANZ, ANZECC & NHMRC 2000).
A number of other steps also can be taken to reduce public health and
environmental risk and therefore reduce legal liabilities for effluent irrigation
schemes. These can include developing a quality assurance program that
covers record keeping, monitoring, reporting and auditing of effluent
irrigation activities. Risk management considerations are incorporated
throughout the Guidelines, in particular, Section 5, Operation and
Management.
Other effluent types

For other types of effluent, such as those derived from dairies, intensive
animal industries, food industry, tanneries and abattoirs, solids removal
followed by ponding is normally necessary to ensure effluent can be
effectively irrigated. Disinfection, in a manner similar to sewage effluent, may
not be necessary in all circumstances. Management practices to prevent risks
to public health or to animals are necessary in some cases (see Section 5).
Advice from NSW Health should be sought wherever there is a potential risk
to public health. Veterinary advice should be sought where there is any doubt
about risks of animal disease.

3.11 Other factors
Where effluent is likely to have very high levels of certain constituents, other
processes than irrigation may be considered.
For example, effluent from woolscour plants may contain high levels of
potassium. It may be better to treat this product as a potassium fertiliser
rather than as a source of water.
In some cases industry has the ability to control inputs into the waste stream,
so as to produce a better quality effluent (e.g. where there is extensive
detergent use, selection of low phosphorus and sodium detergents will reduce
the risk of producing a high phosphorus or SAR effluent). This is particularly
important where industry uses high levels of potential environmental
contaminants.

4. Design Considerations
Effluent irrigation systems should use best management practices to optimise
the use of the water, nutrients and organic matter. For an effluent irrigation
system to be ecologically sustainable, the irrigated plants and environment
must not become stressed by the effluent or by the organic, nutrient or
chemical loadings applied.
The amount of water, nutrients and organic matter for optimum sustainable
production of any given cropping system will be a function of the crop or
cultivar, the agronomic system employed, and site-specific factors such as
climate, topography and soil.
Licensing considerations in the design process

Most effluent reuse activities do not need to be licensed by the EPA2 (see
Section 6). For example, where the potential for reuse of effluent is optimised,
a licence may not need to be issued by the EPA for a particular effluent
producing activity. In this case the proponent of the scheme must
demonstrate that there is sufficient land area and wet weather storage
provided to ensure a sustainable effluent irrigation scheme without the need
for regular discharges to waters. This is known as a full reuse scheme
(Section 4.2).
In other cases an effluent irrigation scheme may be a part of an effluent
management strategy for an effluent producing activity; for example a golf
course that takes effluent on an as needs basis from a local STP with any
remaining effluent discharged by the STP to a waterway. The discharge part
of the scheme is likely to be licensed, but the effluent irrigation area may not
require a licence unless there is a likelihood of effluent being discharged from
the site. These latter types of schemes are `partial reuse’ schemes (see Section
4.2). In this case it is still necessary to ensure that the irrigation activity is
sustainable by modelling the fate of water, nutrients, salt and other
contaminants. In addition, if the daily flow is insufficient to meet peak
irrigation demands, a storage may need to be constructed to ensure the
activity has sufficient effluent to ensure good plant growth all year.
Load-based licensing
Industry groups that are included in the load-based licensing (LBL) scheme
administered by DEC and who reuse effluent can obtain a discount on the
pollutant load fee where effluent is reused in a sustainable manner. The LBL
protocol (EPA 1999b; and Appendix 2) provides background information on
the circumstances under which a fee reduction can be claimed. The design
2
The EPA is a statutory body with specific powers under environment protection legislation. In
September 2003, the EPA became part of the Department of Environment and Conservation
(DEC).

process for reuse schemes should take into account the savings available
under LBL. Current LBL protocols should be consulted.
The use of models in design

Models are used to predict sustainable land areas and wet weather storage
requirements for a specific effluent irrigation scheme. They can also be used
to identify the key risks of the scheme and therefore the need for additional
controls such as buffer zones, low impact irrigation systems, leaching
requirements, runon and runoff controls. Models rely on carefully collected
and comprehensive baseline data on site features (Section 2), including some
or all of:
• effluent flow rate and quality
• climate
• plant type and proposed plant management
• landform, soil properties
• the proposed irrigation system.
The construction of models to determine the properties of an irrigation scheme
that maximises reuse of effluent will differ from a model used to assess a partial
reuse scheme.
Other design considerations

Other issues to consider in design include the:
• provision of buffer zones to surface and groundwater bodies, occupied
dwellings, property boundaries and other areas where spray drift or
runoff and percolation of effluent could have an adverse impact
• location of any wet weather storage so as to minimise impacts from any
necessary discharges
• works associated with soil and water management on the property
including works to minimise runon and runoff from the irrigation area
• type of irrigation system and associated electricity supplies, pumps and
pipework
• location and size of pipes transporting effluent to the irrigation area.
4.1 Calculating land area and storage requirements
Full reuse schemes

In an irrigation scheme that fully uses the effluent (thereby minimising the
need for discharges to water), the area required for irrigation is determined by
calculating the limiting land area using a water, nutrient or contaminant
balance. The limiting land area is the largest land area required to satisfy any
single water, nutrient or contaminant balance to ensure a sustainable
irrigation scheme. The size of wet weather storage is then calculated from the
4. Design considerations 35
water balance using the calculated minimum land area and the allowable
discharge frequency, which is determined from the strength of the effluent
and any additional management practices or issues that reduces effluent
strength or impacts.
Partial reuse schemes

In a partial reuse scheme, the available land area is usually pre-determined. In
this case calculations are made to determine the sustainable load of water,
nutrient and effluent contaminants that can be applied without nutrients, salt,
metals etc. degrading or contaminating the surrounding environment. The
storage is sized so that a reasonable level of plant growth is maintained
throughout the year and/or to provide effluent storage capacity during
particularly unfavourable effluent discharge conditions (eg. low river flows).
Effluent is either received from the source ‘on demand’ or excess effluent is
discharged.
4.2 The water balance

To have an effective effluent irrigation system, it is essential that the correct
amount of effluent is applied at the right times to meet the crop requirements
while ensuring increases in runoff and percolation are minimised.
A water balance should be constructed to determine the maximum volume of
effluent that could be sustainably used on average each year. The elements to
be considered in a water balance are:
• precipitation
• effluent applied
• evapotranspiration
• percolation
• runoff.
Significant amounts of percolation and runoff occur as a result of natural
rainfall events. However, to ensure a sustainable system, percolation and
runoff should not increase significantly above rain fed conditions thereby
increasing the risk of pollution and changes in catchment hydrology.
The water balance is generally expressed as follows:
Equation 2: Water balance
Precipitation + Effluent applied = Evapotranspiration + Percolation + Runoff
Precipitation
The rainfall data over a historical period is used. This data can be obtained in
monthly or daily format from the Bureau of Meteorology.

Effluent applied
The amount of effluent to be applied can be expressed as volume (ML).
Seasonal variations in effluent volume must be taken into account together
with any impacts on effluent volume as a result of significant rainfall events.
Discounting for losses from spray irrigation can be used with caution when it
is obvious that some water will be lost for example during low humidity and
high temperature. However, for the amount that evaporates before reaching
the ground, there will be a similar reduction in available evaporation.
Therefore any estimated allowance for spray losses must be accompanied by
an estimated reduction in evaporation and must be seasonally adjusted based
on an analysis of local data.
Evapotranspiration
This will vary throughout the year depending on temperature, humidity,
solar radiation, wind, crop type and crop growth patterns. It can be estimated
by multiplying daily or monthly evaporation values for a district by the
appropriate crop factor for the particular species of plant to be grown.
The crop factor takes into account plant productivity, and the meteorological
factors. Some crop factors are given in Table 4.1. However, as they can be
highly variable, they are a generalised guide only and will not be suitable for
all circumstances. Myers et al. (1999) includes crop factors for locations in
addition to Wagga Wagga. It is recommended that proponents consider site-
specific conditions when adopting crop factors used for water balance
determination. A useful source of information on crop water use is Doorenbos
and Pruitt (1977).
Table 4.1: Crop factors1 for some crops, trees and pasture
Crop J F M A M J J A S O N D
Lucerne .95 .90 .85 .80 .70 .55 .55 .65 .75 .85 .95 1.00
Citrus .55 .55 .55 .55 .50 .50 .50 .50 .55 .55 .55 .55
Grape-vines .60 .60 .50 .40 .25 .20 .15 .20 .25 .40 .55 .60
Deciduous orchard .75 .65 .45 .25 .15 .10 .15 .20 .30 .50 .70 .75
Pasture .70 .70 .70 .60 .50 .45 .40 .45 .55 .65 .70 .70
2
Eucalypt plantation .78 .84 .94 1.17 1.21 1.15 1.13 1.33 1.33 1.26 .99 .83
Notes: 1. Crop factors are expressed as the ratio of crop evapotranspiration to pan evaporation.
2. At Wagga Wagga – Source: Myers et al. (1999). Humidity has a profound influence on the
crop factor of eucalypts and values only suit climates similar to Wagga Wagga.
Crop factors are sometimes expressed on different bases. Some are expressed
as the ratio of crop evapotranspiration to pan evaporation while others are
expressed as the ratio of potential evapotranspiration to crop
evapotranspiration. The difference between pan evaporation and potential
evapotranspiration is known as the pan factor. Care should be taken when
using crop factors to ensure that the correct factor is used for the calculation
being carried out.
Percolation
Percolation is the movement of water down through the soil profile and is a
natural phenomenon after any rainfall event that exceeds the soil moisture
deficit. An irrigated site will have more percolation than a site with rainfall
only. Percolation is a process that prevents build-up of salt in the root zone.
In humid coastal and mountain areas percolation due to natural rainfall may
be sufficient to prevent salt build up, but in dry climates, a small fraction of
irrigated effluent may be all that is required to leach salts out of the root zone.
The need for deliberate percolation of effluent will also depend on the salt
tolerance of the plants and the salt concentration in the irrigation effluent.
Percolation must not simply be used as a means to dispose of effluent to the
environment as there is potential for other pollutants (e.g. nitrates) to be
leached in addition to salts.
The rate of salt accumulation depends on a number of factors including the
effluent salinity, hydraulic loading, rainfall and resulting natural leaching.
One simple method for determining the fraction of irrigation water required
to leach salts is to use the following equation:
EC (irrigation water) ÷ EC (50% yield reduction)

Where:
EC (irrigation water) = electrical conductivity (dS/m) of the irrigation water
EC (50% yield reduction) = electrical conductivity (dS/m) of the drainage
water at which the relative crop yield is reduced by 50% (Tables 4.4 and 4.5).
For example, if EC (irrigation water) is 0.75 dS/m (TDS = 450 mg/L) and EC
(50% yield reduction) is 8.8 dS/m (TDS = 5,280 mg/L), then the required
fraction is 0.085. If the annual effluent application is 800 mm, then the annual
leaching requirement is 68 mm (0.085 x 800). This value can be included in
calculating area and land requirements using a monthly water balance (e.g.
ERIM). This method makes a number of simplifications, most importantly the
dilution of the effluent salt load and the increased hydraulic load provided by
rainfall are not included. For most systems however, these simplifications do
not significantly effect the estimation of the leaching fraction, which is usually
found to be less than 0.1.
A number of methods to estimate leaching fraction are available and the most
suitable should be used in each case, taking into account site-specific
information. For example, a daily water balance, which includes algorithms to
model the movement of water through the soil, can be used to estimate the
need, if any, for deliberate leaching events using effluent. However, the most
direct way to determine the need for deliberate leaching is to monitor salt
levels in the lower part of the plant root zone. If these start to increase to
above acceptable levels then leaching is required.

Runoff
Irrigation tends to increase runoff due to the reduction in the amount of rain
needed to saturate soil to a point where runoff occurs. Therefore, runoff as a
result of irrigation with effluent should be set to zero in a water balance. This
will provide a safety factor to ensure that runoff is not used as a means to
dispose of the effluent to the environment and ensure that runoff does not
increase significantly above the natural baseline. Runoff, however, will occur
during protracted or heavy rain. Runoff from irrigation areas also should be
controlled and managed to limit soil loss and export of nutrients from the site.
Effluent storage
The effluent storage is also a key component of the water balance and can be
used to optimise the land area required to satisfy water demand
requirements. Section 4.7 provides information on modelling storage and land
area requirements for a sustainable water and nutrient reuse.
Full reuse
Where there is to be no effective discharges of effluent to waters, adequate
capacity to store effluent must be calculated from the water balance. The
strength of the effluent (Section 3 and Table 3.1) is used as a tool to determine
the allowable frequency of uncontrolled discharges which inevitably occur as
a result of prolonged rainfall events. As a general guide, for low strength
effluents, uncontrolled releases may be permitted in 50 percent of years. For
medium and high strength effluent, discharges may be limited to 25 and 10
percent of years respectively. It should be noted, for example, that a 60th
percentile storage requirement could be applied where the effluent is
marginally stronger than the low strength (See also Section 4.7, Models). In
some situations, either the strength of the effluent and/or the sensitivity of
the receiving environment may be such that there should be no overflows (or
less frequent overflows than those provided above as guidance) from the
storage to the environment.
Partial reuse
In a partial reuse scheme wet weather storage is considered if the daily
effluent flow rate is less than the irrigation demand during periods of peak
plant water demand, or the effluent manager wishes to only discharge
effluent under certain receiving water conditions.
The water balance can be used to calculate the monthly (or other time period)
irrigation demand. The time period with the greatest irrigation demand is
then compared with the actual effluent flow rate over the same time period. If
the flow rate is less than the plant irrigation demand then the proponent of
the scheme may choose to construct a wet weather storage to ensure that
plant growth is maintained at this critical time.
Storage construction
Advice should be sought (from DIPNR, NSW Department of Primary
Industries or professional engineering services) on techniques to build
effluent storages to prevent failure and leakage. Overflows should have a
properly constructed overflow point from the storage facility to ensure
control of the overflow. Where licensed, DEC may require monitoring and
reporting of overflows.
4.3 Nutrient loading rates

The loading rates of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can limit the
quantity of effluent to be used for irrigation in a given area.
Under most conditions, the rate of nutrient application would need to be
predicted using a nutrient balance before any scheme commences.
In a nutrient mass balance, the amount of the specific nutrient assumed to be
applied in a year is compared with the amount taken up by the biological or
physical processes of the crop-soil system.
Nitrogen and phosphorus retained in a standing or residual crop, as well as
faeces and urine produced by grazing animals must be regarded as potential
sources of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus, which could pollute surface and
groundwater. Total harvesting of plants will, therefore, extend the effective
life of the site.
Table 4.2 summarises the removal of nutrients by selected crops. These values
should be treated as indicative nutrient uptakes only as they are affected by
soil and climatic conditions and can vary considerably. Accurate and current
local yield information should be used in nutrient balance calculations, where
available (e.g. typical yields from other irrigation sites in a region). Actual
crop yields should be monitored during operation to ensure that the figures in
the nutrient balance calculations are correct.
Where nutrient balances show there is a potential for nutrient to leak below
the plant root zone, groundwater monitoring will need to be considered.
Where there are risks of runoff to waterways, surface water monitoring also
may be applicable (see Section 6).

Table 4.2: Yield and nutrient content of crops in NSW for cultivation under
irrigation with effluent
Average grain
yield (tonnes/ha Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
Grain Crop Area dry matter) % % %
Barley State-wide 3.5 1.8 0.4 0.69
1
Canola Central–west 2.8 4.6 (0.7) (0.7)
South–west 2.8
slopes
Faba beans North–west 2.0 4.1 0.5 1.5

Riverina 2.0
Grain sorghum North-west 2.5 2.1 0.3 0.3
Central west 2.5
Riverina 2.8
Lupins Central west 1.5 5.0 0.5 0.8
South-west 1.5
Maize North-west 5.8 1.6 0.3 0.5
Central west 5.6
Riverina 7.0
Coastal 7.0
Oats State-wide 4.0 1.7 0.4 0.4
Field pea State-wide 1.0 4.0 0.2 1.4
Soybean North-west 3.2 6.6 0.6 1.7
Riverina 3.2
Summer grain State-wide 1.0 4.0 0.2 1.4
legumes:
cowpeas,
mungbeans,
pigeon peas
Sunflower North-west 1.2 5.2 (0.6) (0.7)
Riverina 1.7
Triticale Central west 2.3 2.0 0.4 0.6
South-west 2.1
Wheat State-wide 4.0 1.9 0.4 0.6
Forage millet State-wide 10 1.7 (0.2) (1.9)
(pennesetum)
Forage sorghum State-wide 15 1.8 0.3 1.9
Maize State-wide 25 1.1 (0.2) (1.0)
Summer grain North 3.0 1.7 (0.4) (2.4)
legumes
Winter cereals State-wide 5.0 1.5 0.3 1.4
Winter grain State-wide 4.0 2.7 0.3 1.6
legumes
Wheat straw State-wide 5.0 0.5 0.1 1.3
Table 4.2: Yield and nutrient content of crops in NSW for cultivation under
irrigation with effluent (continued)
Average grain
yield (tonnes/ha Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
Grain Crop Area/season dry matter) % % %
Barley straw State-wide 14.0 0.5 0.1 0.4
Oat straw State-wide 5.0 0.7 0.1 2.4
Lupin straw State-wide 0.5 0.6 0.05 0.9
Pea straw State-wide 0.5 1.1 0.1 1.3
Triticale Central West 6.0 0.5 0.1 0.5
South-west 6.0
Grain sorghum North-west 3.0 (1.2) (0.2) (1.2)
Central west 3.0
Riverina 3.5
Maize North-west 7.0 (0.9) (0.3) (2.2)
Central west 7.0
Riverina 9.0
Coastal 9.0
Soybean North-west 5.0 (0.8) (0.1) (0.6)
Riverina 5.0
Kikuyu Sept–Mar 20 2.6 0.3 2.8
Phalaris Mar–Nov 12 1.1 0.3 2.8
Perennial Mar–Dec 12 3.5 0.3 2.0
ryegrass
Fescue All year 14 2.4 0.4 2.1
Lucerne All year 20 3.5 0.4 2.5
White clover Sept–Feb 20 3.7 0.4 2.6
Source: NSW Agriculture (1997).

Notes: The likely yield and growth period will vary between districts and will be affected by such
factors as irrigation efficiency, soil type, variety, nutrition and grazing management where
appropriate.
Figures in brackets are estimated values.
Nutrient removal may be estimated by multiplying nutrient concentration by yield.
Nitrogen balance
The behaviour of nitrogen in plant-soil systems is complex and includes
additions and losses to the system as well as transformations of the forms of
nitrogen. Additions of nitrogen to the system include effluent, fertiliser and
nitrogen fixation by plants. The processes that reduce nitrogen include:
removal of harvestable plant matter from the system; volatilisation of
ammonia; and denitrification of both nitrate and nitrite to gaseous nitrogen
forms. Nitrogen can also be stored in the system, for example as residue left
on the ground or as humus in the soil.
Nitrogen inputs should be compared with nitrogen losses. A simple approach
to the nitrogen balance is to compare the total nitrogen usage of each
cultivated crop with the amount of total nitrogen available. This is a

conservative approach that can be useful to ensure long-term sustainability as
the total nitrogen applied plus mineralisation will balance the nitrogen
removed by the harvested plants. Little information is available on nitrogen
loss by denitrification but it is known to be highly variable and should not be
included in the nitrogen balance unless sound information is available. Under
some conditions denitrification rates will be low which can lead to excess
nitrogen in the system. On the other hand, the amount of nitrogen volatilised
as ammonia is significant. This varies depending on climate conditions and
the irrigation method used (15% volatilisation in cool climates and up to 25%
in warm climates). Under optimal volatilisation conditions (eg. fine spray
irrigation in hot and low humidity climates), up to 50% volatilisation may
occur.
It is important that nitrogen from any other source, such as fertiliser
application or nitrogen fixation, be included when calculating agronomic
rates in systems. Nitrogen storage is not included in the nitrogen balance
calculation, except for forestry, as it will reach steady state for cropping
systems.
Equation 4, below, shows the nitrogen (N) available for plants during the
application year. Equation 5 shows the N available from that same effluent in
subsequent years. When annual applications are planned, it is necessary to
repeat the calculations using Equation 6 to determine the total available-N in
a given year. These results will converge on a relatively constant value after
five to six years if the effluent characteristics and application rates remain
relatively unchanged.
Equation 4: Available nitrogen in application year
[NE] = [NO3-N] + (1-kv)[NH4-N] + f y [NO-N]

Where:
[NE] = plant-available nitrogen in the effluent during the application year in
mg/L or equivalently kg/ML effluent
[NO3-N] = concentration of nitrogen as nitrate in the effluent in mg/L
kv = fraction of ammonia volatilised
[NH4-N] = concentration of nitrogen as ammonium in the effluent in mg/L
f y= mineralisation fraction for organic nitrogen in each year (Table 3.2)
[NO-N] = concentration of nitrogen as organic nitrogen in effluent in mg/L.
Total available nitrogen in any year also includes the mineralisation of
residual organic nitrogen from all previous years.
Equation 5: Total available nitrogen
TNEy = [NO3-N] + (1-kv)[NH4-N] + f y [NO-N]y + f y (1- f y-1)[ NO-N] y-1 +

f y (1- f y-1)(1- f y-2)[ NO-N] y-2+ … + f y (1- f y-1)…..(1- f 1)[ NO-N] 1
Where:
y = number of years in the simulation where year 1 is the first year of
irrigation;
TNEy = total plant-available nitrogen in year y including mineralisation of
residual NO from the previous year in kg/ML; and
[NO-N]x = the concentration of nitrogen as organic nitrogen in year x in
mg/L.
Other terms as already defined.
The calculation should be carried out for the number of years in the sequence
until either the first year of application is reached or the additional terms
going back in history become insignificant.
Equation 6: Nitrogen-limiting loading
Ry = U/TNEy
Where:
Ry = annual effluent loading in year y in ML/ha/yr
U = annual crop uptake of nitrogen in kg/ha/yr (Table 4.2)
For irrigation systems where the nitrogen loading rate is the limiting factor,
the nitrogen removal capacity of the crop should be estimated by the nitrogen
content of its harvestable portion (see Table 4.2).
The above equation is one example of a nitrogen budget. Proponents of
effluent irrigation schemes may seek advice from suitably qualified persons
who may have different methods for estimating nitrogen balances.
For reuse schemes subject to load-based licensing, the nitrogen balance can be
a factor in fee discount calculations. Load-based licensing protocols should be
consulted for more detail on how nitrogen balance calculations are
undertaken for industry groups included in the load-based licensing scheme.
Phosphorus compounds
The capacity of an irrigation system to use nitrogen can be maintained and
restored over time since the removal of nitrogen from effluent largely
depends on biological processes. In contrast, phosphorus (P) is removed from
effluent through biological, chemical and physical processes in the soil. The
existing P sorption capacity of the soil and the P uptake by the plants to be
grown determines how much P can be introduced before the site is saturated.
Soils with a high degree of pedality (or cracking soils) or major geological
discontinuity (identified in the planning process) could act as a conduit for
phosphorus rich effluent to enter a valuable water resource. This information

gives an idea of how to sustainably manage an irrigation site over the long
term.
For schemes subject to load-based licensing, the phosphorus balance is a
factor in fee discount calculations. Load-based licensing protocols should be
consulted for more detail on how the phosphorus balance is considered in fee
calculations.
Table 4.3 shows the range of potential P sorption capacities measured from
several NSW soils. Where nutrient budgets show that more P is being applied
than is capable of being removed by the crop management system,
assessments of P sorption capacity should be made. At the time of writing
there is no universal agreement as to the best method for measuring soil P
sorption capacity and advice should be sought from recognised laboratories
and/or environmental scientists.
The phosphorus saturation point of most soils is probably reached between
0.25 and 0.5 of total sorption capacity (Kruger et al. 1995). If application of P
exceeds this threshold, both runoff and leaching of phosphorus to surface and
groundwater may occur.
When calculating the amount of P that can be sustainably applied to land, the
percentage of total sorption capacity at which phosphorus leaching occurs
(sorption saturation point) should be calculated and used. Other site specific
details such as soil depth should also be used. The depth of the crops active
root zone will determine the soil depth from which phosphorus can be used
by plants and therefore removed from the site by harvesting the crop.
Example of a phosphorus sustainability calculation
Assumptions:
• Phosphorus sorption capacity = 350 mg/kg
• Phosphorus sorption capacity (critical) = 117 mg/kg (for most soils, the
strength of P sorption is low to moderate, so in this example only about
one third of the P sorption capacity can be used before some leaching of P
occurs).
• Soil depth = 1 metre (m)
• Soil density = 1,300 kg/m3
• Land area for irrigation = 40 ha
• Total P in applied effluent = 8 mg/L
• Volume of effluent at 1 ML/day = 365 ML/yr
Calculations:
Total P adsorbed before leaching:
= P sorption capacity (critical) x soil density x soil depth x 40 Ha
= 117 mg/kg x 1,300 kg/m3 x 1 m x 40 Ha x 10,000 m2 /Ha x 10-
6
mg/kg
= 60,840 kg
Total orthophosphate in applied effluent per year
= 8 mg/L x 365,000,000 L
= 2,920 kg
Total P removed by crop per ha per year = 25 kg
Therefore total P removed by crop per 40 ha per year = 1,000 kg
Site irrigation period:
= (60,840 kg)/(2,920 kg/year - 1,000 kg/year)
= 31.7 years
Physical and chemical soil reactions provide significant phosphorus removal

pathways, but are not necessarily renewable. Thus, applying effluent with a
very high phosphorus concentration could shorten the useable lifetime of the
site. For schemes subject to load-based licensing, the current load-based
licensing protocol should be used to determine timeframes for calculating the
sustainable assimilation of nutrients, on which to base nutrient application
rates. Phosphorus use can be maximised by harvesting crops from the site.
Efficiency increases with the number of harvests that can be achieved per
year. Ideally, phosphorus removal by harvesting should be based on the
portion of the crop that can be harvested.

Table 4.3: Phosphorus adsorption potential of NSW soils (1m depth)
Total P
sorption P sorption
Soil parent capacity capacity (critical)
Location material Soil classification (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Sydney Hawkesbury Soloth 5,440 2,700
Basin sandstone
Sydney Hawkesbury yellow earth 13,600 4,600

Basin sandstone
Sydney Wianamatta shale red podzolic soil 13,110–15,005 4,000–5,000

Basin
Sydney Wianamatta shale Soloth >12,015 >4,000

Basin
Coastal sand dune siliceous sand 25–130 25–36
South coast Tertiary alluvial yellow earth 3,500 1,700

sediments
South coast Holocene sand siliceous sand >150 >50

dune
South coast Ordovician yellow podzolic soil 13,500 5,000

metasediments
South coast Ordovician yellow orange 7,475–13,450 2,500–4,400

metasediments podzolic soil
Central west alluvial sediments red earth 3,060–3,375 1,000
South-west alluvial sediments red-brown earth 6,070–6,830 2,000–2,300
North-west alluvial sediments brown cracking clay 4,305–6,130 1,000–1,900
North-west alluvial sediments grey cracking clay 4,980–6,870 1,500–2,100
North-west Tertiary volcanics structured red 4,510–6,360 1,500–2,100

earths
Source: Kruger, Taylor & Ferrier (eds) (1995).
Nutrient imbalances
Effluent can supply some or all of the essential nutrients for healthy plant
growth, but these are usually not supplied in the correct ratio. It might be
necessary to diagnose nutritional disorders in soils and crops, and determine
corrective action. It may also be necessary to add fertilisers to promote plant
growth so that nutrient removal from the site is efficient. The advice of NSW
Department of Primary Industries or other professional agronomists should
be sought on this. Some crops (e.g. wine grapes) have particular nutrient
requirements at certain times of the year. For example, applying too much
fertiliser, such as nitrogen, may promote leaf growth at the expense of
flowering and fruiting.
Operators should assess which nutrients are already present in the soil before
applying effluent. In many cases, imbalances of micronutrients and metals
may be inferred by soil pH. Usually, problems of deficiency or toxicity can be
minimised if surface soils are maintained at a pH of between 6.0 and 8.0.
4.4 Salinity control and salt balances
Proper management is necessary to ensure that effluent irrigation does not
lead to soil degradation by increasing soil salinity.
All irrigation waters contain some salt. Salt may concentrate in the root zone if
there is insufficient drainage to take away any salt not utilised by the growing
plant. With each effluent application, the salt concentration in the root zone
may progressively increase unless leaching and drainage remove it. Without
the downward water flow of leaching and drainage, salts within the root zone
can be drawn towards the soil surface by water evaporation. Therefore, the
prime requirement for salinity control in irrigation systems is to provide
adequate leaching to prevent salt accumulation. This requires periodic
monitoring of the levels and distributions of soil salinity, particularly within
the root zone areas.
When using effluent that consistently contains more than 500 mg/L of TDS, a
higher level of salinity control to maintain a viable and lasting system is
required. More area for irrigation may be required than is calculated by water
or nutrient balance equations to compensate for the high salt concentrations.
It may also be necessary to dilute effluent to avoid damaging plants,
especially those with a low salt tolerance. The relative tolerance of plants to
saline irrigation effluent can be found in ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000)
and other references.
Modelling the movement of salt through the soil is particularly difficult as the
interactions between irrigation and natural rainfall, plant uptake and
recycling of specific salts and the dynamics of soil salt and sodicity levels on
soil hydraulic conductivity are not precisely understood. Estimates of salt
movement are possible with commercially available modelling software that
calculate salt balances from inputs of parameters such as salt load, effluent
volumes, climatic data, proposed cropping regime, crop water use and
physical soil properties. Salt balances should be determined for all proposed
schemes to ensure that salinity is appropriately managed.
For those industry groups subject to load-based licensing, the Load Based
Licensing Protocol can be used to identify management and monitoring
conditions for salt in effluent that will attract full or partial load-based
licensing discounts as at the time of this publication. Current load-based
licensing protocols should be consulted. These tables also provide information
on where the saltiness of the effluent is a major determinant in minimum area
requirements. Available salt models should be used with caution and advice
sought on their appropriateness in the area under consideration.
Soil salinity and plant growth

Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show the soil salinities where 10% and 50% yield reductions
can be expected for selected plants (figures are the electrical conductivity of
the saturation extract (ECe)). These figures can be used in determining the
leaching fraction component of any water budget required to remove salts
from the root zone while minimising groundwater pollution.

Table 4.4: Yield reduction of crops due to soil salinity
1
Yield reduction (dS/m)
Crop 10% 50%

High tolerance
Barley (grain)2 10 18
Cotton 9.6 17
Couch grass 8.5 14.7
Sugar beet 8.7 15
Perennial ryegrass 6.9 12.2
Garden beet2 5.1 9.6
Medium tolerance
Wheat (grain)2 7.4 13
Safflower 6.2 9.9
Phalaris 6.9 11.1
Sorghum (grain) 5.1 11
Olive 3.8 8.4
Rice2 3.8 7.2
Cantaloupe 3.6 9.1
Tomato 3.5 7.6
Lucerne 3.4 8.8
Cocksfoot 3.1 9.6
Cabbage 2 7
Maize (grain) 2.5 5.9
Potato 2.5 5.9
Lettuce 2.1 5.2
Low tolerance
Grape 2.5 6.7
Grapefruit 2.1 4.9
Orange 2.3 4.8
Lemon 2.3 4.8
Apple 2.3 4.8
Pear 2.3 4.8
White clover 2.3 5.7
Peach 2.2 4.1
Apricot 2 3.7
Avocado 1.8 3.7
Strawberry 1.3 2.5
Table 4.4: Yield reduction of crops due to soil salinity (continued)
1
Crop 10% 50%
Radish 2 5.0
Onion 1.8 4.3
Carrot 1.7 4.6
Green bean 1.5 3.6
Source: Reid (1990).

Notes: 1. Soil salinity refers to electrical conductivity of saturated extract at 10% and 50% yield
reduction.
2. For satisfactory germination, beets require an ECe of not more than 3 dS/m and rice, wheat
and barley not more than 5 dS/m.
Table 4.5: Yield reduction of trees due to soil salinity

1
Trees 10% 50%
High tolerance 8–10 12–15

Acacia stenophylla (river cooba)
Eucalyptus occidentalis (swamp yate)
Casuarina glauca (swamp she-oak)
Medium tolerance 3–5 6–10

Eucalyptus botryoides (southern mahogany)
Eucalyptus camaldulensis (river red gum)
Eucalyptus tereticornis (forest red gum)
Low tolerance 2–3 5–7

Acacia mearnsii (black wattle)
Eucalyptus grandis (flooded gum)
Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum)
Source: Myers et al. (1999); Marcar et al. (1995).

Notes: 1. Soil salinity refers to electrical conductivity of saturated soil extract (assumed to be an
average for the notional root-zone).
Greater growth reduction can be expected for soils of heavier texture and where seasonal
waterlogging is expected.
Field data are limited and compromised by interacting factors such as waterlogging, age of
measurements, type of growth measure (e.g. height or stem volume), the nature of 'control'
conditions and provenance variation, where in the root-zone salinity is measured (in some
cases, e.g. on deep sandy loams under irrigation better tolerances might be expected).

4.5 Organic Loading Rates
In a sustainable effluent irrigation scheme, organic matter is incorporated into
the soil where it can improve soil fertility and increase plant cover. However,
if organic material is applied at a rate greater than the soil's ability to
assimilate it, then soil pores can become clogged and anaerobic odorous
conditions may result.
High organic loading increases the length of the resting period needed
between applications. Successful irrigation requires well-defined rest periods
within the program to allow the applied water to be evapotranspired, and for
soil microorganisms to break down the organic material contained in the
effluent. This would also minimise soil saturation, resultant runoff and lack of
oxygen in the root zone.
The average maximum daily organic loading rate at an irrigation site should
be calculated from the irrigation rate (determined from a water balance) and
the BOD5 and oil or grease (mg/L) of the applied effluent. Past experience has
shown that an average loading rate of 1500kg/ha/month can be taken as the
maximum organic loading for most soils. However, those industries subject to
load-based licensing should refer to the current load-based licensing protocol
for any relevant criteria for fee discounts. Where nutrient modelling shows
there is a potential for nutrients to leak below the plant root zone, land area
for irrigation should be increased.
The minimum irrigation area required based on organic loading can be
estimated as follows:
Equation 7: Minimum irrigation area
A = CQ / (1,000 x Lc)
Where:
A= irrigation area (ha)
C = concentration of BOD5 (mg/L)
Q= average effluent flow rate (kL/month)
Lc = critical loading rate of constituent (kg/ha/month)
4.6 Heavy metals and persistent organic chemicals

Some trace heavy metals are found naturally in low concentrations in soil.
Levels may vary with soil parent material. Addition of fertilisers, organic or
industrial materials to the soil may add significant loads of heavy metals and
persistent organic chemicals.
There is a risk that the long-term application of effluent could increase the
concentration of contaminants in the topsoil. Grazing animals ingest between
1 and 30 % of their diet as soil. It is reasonable to assume 10 % of the diet is
soil when assessing the potential effects of chemical contaminants in soil.
Contamination must be prevented or the site may no longer be suitable for
agriculture, or urban development. The scheme owner must not allow
chemical concentrations in soil to violate legal plant and animal residue limits
and must not allow the irrigation area to become an officially contaminated
site.
DEC has used extensive research carried out by the former NSW Department
of Agriculture (now NSW Department of Primary Industries) to set maximum
allowable trace metal and persistent organic chemicals concentrations for
agricultural and non-agricultural soils following biosolids application in
Environmental Guidelines: Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products (EPA 1997).
These are shown in Table 4.6 and are used to determine the upper limit in
soils that are being irrigated. Further guidance on cumulative contaminant
loadings can be found in ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 3,
Section 9.2.5.
Cadmium is a critically important element in the animal and human food
chains. Both soils and plants can contribute significant amounts of cadmium
to those food chains. The risk of exceeding legal residue limits in edible
animal tissues is increased if soil and plant levels of zinc, molybdenum and
sulfate are low. Horses and other monogastric animals show adverse effects
with dietary intakes as low as 1 mg of cadmium per kilogram of dietary dry
matter.
Copper toxicity is a common cause of death in sheep in Australia. Dietary
levels as low as 8mg of copper per kilogram of dietary dry matter can cause
toxicity. This is most likely when soil and plant levels of molybdenum are
low. Both soils and plants can contribute significant amounts of copper.
The maximum tolerable dietary level for lead is considered to be 30 mg of
lead per kilogram of dry matter for most domestic animals. However lead
residues in some tissues may still build up at this level. Young animals absorb
more lead from the diet than adults. Ingested soil is the main source of lead.

Table 4.6: Maximum permitted topsoil concentration for chemical
contaminants
Maximum concentration in
1
Contaminants topsoil (mg/kg)
Arsenic 20
Cadmium 1.0
2
Chromium VI 1.0
Copper 100
Lead 150
Mercury 1.0
Nickel 60
Selenium 5.0
Zinc 200
DDT/DDD/DDE 0.5
Aldrin 0.02
Dieldrin 0.02
Chlordane 0.02
Heptachlor/heptachlor epoxide 0.02
Lindane 0.02
Hexachlorobenzene 0.02
3
PCBs non-detect
Source: EPA (1997)

Notes: 1. Mean concentration values
2. Nominal value for protection of agricultural systems animals and soil health. Where effluent
contains Cr VI (maximum concentration 0.1mg/L – see table 3.3) and the rate of reduction to
Cr III in soil is not sufficient to prevent a soil concentration above 1 mg/L Cr VI occurring,
advice should be sought from the NSW Department of Primary Industries.
3. Non-detection at detection limit of 0.1 mg/kg
Effluent containing chromium must be managed to ensure that Cr VI is

reduced to Cr III prior to application to land and application must be
managed to ensure that site-specific agronomic systems, soil types, food
products and the environment are taken into account and protected.
Livestock must not be grazed on pasture where Cr VI is likely to pose an
animal health risk. The National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site
Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPC 1999) sets interim ecological investigation
levels for urban soil for Cr III of 400 mg/kg and for Cr VI of 1 mg/L. To
ensure that present and future use of agricultural land is not compromised,
where continued effluent irrigation will impose soil loads above these levels,
advice on soil types and agricultural systems should be sought from NSW
Department of Primary Industries.
Where heavy metals or persistent organic chemicals are likely to be present,
the cumulative concentration over time should be estimated. See below for an
example calculation.
Example calculation for a persistent organic chemcial

Assumptions:
• Average dieldrin concentration = 0.001 mg/L
• Design flow = 1.0 ML/day
• Soil density = 1.33 g/cm3 (1,330 kg/m3)
• Topsoil depth (where dieldrin remains) = 15 cm
Calculation:
0.001 mg/L x 1,000,000 L/day x 365 days/year = 365,000 mg/year
= 0.365 kg/year
For 1 ha of land, mass of topsoil = site area x topsoil depth x soil density
= 10,000 m2 x 0.15 m x 1,330 kg/m3
= 2,000,000 kg (approximately)
In one year over an irrigation area of 100 ha:
0.365 kg per 200,000,000 kg of soil = 0.002 mg/kg
Therefore, if an effluent containing 0.001 mg/L of dieldrin were applied to
100 hectares over ten years, its concentration in the topsoil would have
reached the maximum soil concentration allowed (0.02 mg/kg). In practice,
however, some of this dieldrin will decay during this time and the maximum
concentration will take longer to reach. The rate of decay for OCs in soil varies
from region to region, depending on climate and soil characteristics. The half-
life of OCs in soil is likely to be five to ten years in NSW, with the warmer and
wetter regions producing a higher rate of decay. Hence it is important to
monitor this constituent.

Herbicides
The phenoxyacid herbicides, such as 2,4-D, and its derivatives, are widely
used for weed control commercially, agriculturally and domestically. It is
therefore possible for these compounds to find their way into effluent. They
degrade rapidly in soil but can persist in effluent, and can be harmful to
plants. Table 4.7 sets out concentrations of herbicides in irrigation effluent, at
which crop injury may occur. See further guidance in ANZECC and
ARMCANZ (2000) Volume 1, Section 4.2.8 and Table 4.2.12 for these and
other herbicides.
Table 4.7: Concentrations of herbicides in irrigation effluent at which crop

injury may occur
Herbicide Crop injury threshold in irrigation effluent (mg/L)
Acrolein Flood or furrow: beans 60; corn 60; cotton 80; soybeans 20; sugar-beets 60
Sprinkler: corn 60; soybeans 15; sugar-beets 15
AF100 Beets (rutabag) 3.5; corn 3.5
Amitrol Lucerne 1,600; beans 1,200; carrots 1,600; corn 3,000; cotton 1,600; grains
sorghum 800
2,4-D Field beans 3.5–10; grapes 0.7–1.5; sugar-beets 1.0–10
Dalapon (2,2-DPA) Beets 7.0, Corn 0.35
Dicamba Cotton 0.18
Dichlobenil Lucerne 10; corn 10; soybeans 1.0; sugar-beets 1.0–10; corn 125; beans 5
Fluometuron Sugar-beets, alfalfa, tomatoes, squash 2.2
Paraquat Corn 10; field beans 0.1, sugar-beets 1.0
Propanil Alfalfa 0.15; brome grass (eradicated) 0.15
Source: ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000), Table 4.2.12
4.7 Models
An array of models have been developed for determining the storage and
land area requirements to ensure a sustainable irrigation scheme in terms of
the water, nutrient and/or salt balance. They may also facilitate the planning
and assessment of environmental impacts of the effluent irrigation system.
The models vary widely in their degree of complexity. Their primary function
is simply to assist in designing an irrigation system appropriate to a particular
site.
Water balance models are those that simulate the water cycle through plants,
animals, land, waterbodies and air. They are widely used to estimate land and
storage requirements for irrigation schemes on different soil types, with
variable agricultural enterprises and climatic conditions. Their complexity can
range from those that simply rely on monthly rainfall and evaporation to
those using complex estimates of plant water use and similarly complex
soil/water relationships.
Salt balance models examine changes in soil salinity over time and can predict
leaching requirements to avoid excessive salt accumulation in the root zone.
Nutrient budget models examine the fate of nutrients, particularly nitrogen
and phosphorus, when applied to the soil. They are based on knowledge of
the cycling of nutrients and their performance in the environment. Nutrient
models are widely used to estimate the application rate of nutrients and long
term management of a scheme based on the soil characteristics and
agricultural enterprise.
DEC has developed one such effluent reuse irrigation model (ERIM) based on
water balance and the strength of the applied effluent to provide guidance for
developing effluent irrigation systems. However, the DEC model (ERIM) is
not considered mandatory for use in conjunction with this guideline.
There are various computer models commercially available to plan effluent
irrigation systems and the assumptions and methods used to construct them
can vary widely. It is therefore likely that results generated by various models
can differ. Models, including ERIM, usually give at best a reasonable
approximation of likely water, nutrient, storage and irrigation area
requirements of an effluent irrigation system. In variable climates (mainly
coastal), particularly where daily-based rainfall models are used, providing
information on the extent of the rainfall variability, and on natural percolation
and runoff, would assist in demonstrating a sustainable irrigation scheme. For
high strength effluent the chance of storage overflow must be small, one year
in ten. The mix of weather conditions that combine to cause an overflow will
therefore be relatively rare and a relatively higher degree of uncertainty will
be associated with these cases. Care must be taken when modelling these
scenarios and interpreting results.
Care should therefore be taken to avoid over-reliance on models to establish
sustainable effluent irrigation systems (e.g. models may not include inorganic
fertiliser/conditioner inputs into the nutrient cycles, such as gypsum, muriate
of potash and urea). It is important to emphasise, however, that DEC or local
council will require the proponent to:
• demonstrate to the satisfaction of DEC or local council that the proposal is
sized (storage and land area), based on sound knowledge of volume of
effluent generated, natural climatic and soil conditions, and the likely
nutrient, salt, organic and chemical content of the effluent (see Sections 2
and 3)
• demonstrate that realistic assumptions have been used in any model and
that model outcomes are sustainable
• include a monitoring program so that model assumptions and outcomes
can be tested. If the scheme performs differently from model predictions
then the monitoring program is to be used to make adjustments to the
scheme design and subsequent performance.

The DEC model
DEC’s Effluent Reuse Irrigation Model (ERIM) provides guidance for
developing effluent irrigation systems. It calculates the water and nutrient
balances using monthly historical rainfall and evaporation; the amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus introduced and removed by plants to be grown; the
amount of applied organic matter; and soil water-holding capacity. Other
inputs include the volume of effluent applied, the strength of the effluent that
may leave the site, and the organic, nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to the
site.
The DEC model does not incorporate salt or chemical balance considerations
and hence the additional calculations as described in Sections 4.4 and 4.6 will
need to be used in conjunction with this model.
Minimum irrigation areas are calculated using a water, nitrogen and
phosphorus balance, and the largest area determined is the minimum
irrigation area needed (with adequate storage) for the system to be
sustainable.
The relationships between effluent strength, storage and land area
requirements are as follows.
• Irrigation land requirements for the irrigation of low strength effluent is
determined based on the 50th percentile storage requirements established
in the model using the water balance equation in Section 4.2.
• For medium and high strength effluent, irrigation area requirements are
determined based on 75th percentile and 90th percentile storage
requirements respectively.
• Depending on the effluent quality, other percentile storage requirements
may be used to determine the irrigation area requirement; for example, a
60th percentile storage requirement could be applied to establish land area
for the irrigation of effluent that is marginally stronger than the low
strength effluent.
The model is reliant on the availability of historical data and a significant
underlying assumption is that historical data can be used to predict future
climatic patterns. If 100 years of rainfall and evaporation data for a proposed
site has been used, the model would provide 100 yearly storage requirements,
one for each year. These indicate the size of the storage needed for each year
over this historical period. If, for example, a 90th percentile storage
requirement were chosen, then this would be sufficient to contain surplus
effluent and prevent any overflow for 90 out of 100 years. If a 50th percentile is
used, then the storage needed to contain effluent in 50 percent of the years is
used. The maximum available rainfall and evaporation data set should be
used in the model.
The relationship between a selected storage requirement and the land area
required for irrigation can be graphically established. Within limits, irrigation
area can be substituted for storage, and vice versa.
Care must be taken in using the model when effluent flow rates are variable
and where a range of crop types are being irrigated from the same effluent
source. The ERIM model can be used to predict the performance of partial
reuse schemes provided the effluent volume for the scheme can be nominated
on a month by month basis.
Details relating to the construction and use of the model are at Appendix 4.
4.8 Plant selection and land use

The effluent quality, hydraulic capacity and soil quality at the site, and the
climatic conditions of the area and salt sensitivity of plants generally influence
the type of plants to be grown. These factors must be clearly addressed during
the design stage of the project. Relevant information regarding plant selection
for an area should be obtained from NSW Department of Primary Industries
where appropriate.
Effective and efficient crop/pasture and animal management in using all of
the applied nutrients is also a major factor in a sustainable effluent application
system, because nutrients that are not removed from the site remain in the soil
and could be carried to surface water and groundwater. Grazing animals
within the irrigation site, deciduous and evergreen trees can return nutrients
to the soil and this aspect needs to be properly considered and managed.
The stage of crop growth also has a major influence on the crop factor used in
the water balance. Double cropping, for example, involves ground
preparation, planting and harvesting twice a year. During these periods there
is little or no plant growth and crop factors should be set to zero.
4.9 Erosion control

The potential for erosion of the site should be considered in terms of both
stormwater runoff and effluent application rates. Where crops other than
pasture are to be irrigated, there should be strict constraints on irrigation
rates. Advice should be sought when soils that may erode are suspected.
4.10 Separation distances and management of buffer zones

In planning for an effluent irrigation scheme consideration of the separation
of irrigation areas and irrigation infrastructure from neighbours and sensitive
environments must be considered. The purpose of separating these land uses
is to protect a locality’s amenity, ground and surface waters, other
environmental and social values as well the long-term future of the effluent
irrigation scheme.
The management of impacts from a scheme and therefore the provision of
separation of potentially conflicting land use and the management of buffer
zones are the responsibility of scheme proponents.
Separation distances and the impact mitigation strategies employed in these
buffer zones vary depending on the impacts that are to be controlled. For
example noise impacts can be effectively controlled over very short distances

through the employment of sound barriers within the buffer zone. Impacts
such as odour are much more difficult to manage and larger buffer zones
incorporating vegetation are generally required to control these types of
impacts.
When dealing with impacts that are difficult to measure and quantify, such as
odour where the sensitivity of the receptor determines, to a large degree, the
scale of the impact, impact management strategies beyond separation and
impact mitigation may be required. These strategies could extend to
communication forums with neighbours, public reporting of environmental
monitoring and/or other strategies.
Separation distances and buffer zone management must also consider the
nature of the receiving environment and its sensitivity to impacts. For
example in situations where surface waters have a particular sensitivity such
as supporting fish and fisheries or a high value use like drinking water supply
it is critical that these values be protected. Assessment of separation distances
and buffer zone management strategies will need to be detailed,
comprehensive and conservative in order to protect these values. Where the
sensitivity of the receiving environment is less, for example a grazing
paddock, separation distances will still be required and will be based on
protecting the values of neighbouring land for current and likely future uses.
In determining the suitability of a separation distance and buffer zone
management strategies, designers of effluent irrigation schemes should
ensure the protection of:
• surface water
• groundwater
• human health, heritage and well being
• domestic and wild plant and animal health
• native vegetation, wetlands and associated biological diversity.
In addition, proponents should recognise that:
• responsibility for the establishment and management for buffer zones rests
with the proponent
• the size of the buffer zone will need to be justified based on the sensitivity
of the receiving environment, the strength of the effluent, the level of
effluent treatment, proposed impact mitigation strategies, the method of
effluent application and irrigation management practices such as irrigation
scheduling.
There are a number of easily identified sensitive receptors to the potential
impacts of any effluent irrigation scheme and they are identified in Table 4.8
along with a general description of the impacts of concern. Table 4.8 identifies
some of the more obvious sensitive receptors. This list is not exhaustive and
the surrounding environment of any effluent irrigation scheme should be
investigated to identify potentially sensitive receptors and the impacts of
concern. Once these have been identified impact mitigation strategies
including the separation of uses, buffer zones and selection of appropriate
effluent treatment and irrigation systems can be designed and employed.
Table 4.8 Sensitive receptors of effluent irrigation schemes
Sensitive area Impacts of concern
Natural water bodies (e.g. rivers, lakes) Water quality, aquatic ecosystems, relevant
beneficial uses
Other waters: e.g. artificial waters with beneficial uses, Water quality, ecosystems, relevant beneficial
drainage channels, small streams, intermittent streams, uses
farm dams
Domestic well used for household water Water quality and public health
Town water supply bore Water quality and public health
Houses, schools, playing fields, public roads, public Odour, noise, Water quality (pathogens,
open space contaminants)
Environmentally sensitive areas: e.g. drinking water Water quality, ecosystems, soil and water
catchments, wetlands, stands of native vegetation nutrient status, biodiversity
Livestock and crops Pathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds
When determining the size of a separation distance the nature of the buffer
zone and techniques to avoid impacts must be considered. Where a buffer
zone for a spray irrigation proposal is characterised by flat, open country
where ground cover is predominantly pasture separation distances may need
to be in the order of hundreds of metres to protect sensitive receptors. The
same irrigation scheme may require a separation distance of only tens of
metres if impact mitigation strategies such as tree and shrub planting in the
buffer zone, lower height and pressure of sprayers and larger droplet sizes are
incorporated.
Table 4.9 provides recommendations on appropriate buffer distances between
effluent irrigation sites and water resources and public areas. These can be
used where no other information is available to determine buffers or where a
proponent prefers to use these values rather than determine appropriate
buffers on a site-specific basis. Other factors such as pathogen levels should
be taken into account when establishing buffers to protect human health.
Wider buffers may be required, or narrower buffers may be allowed,
depending on site- or issue-specific factors. For example, narrower buffers
may be appropriate where high quality effluent, a low volume of effluent or
vegetated filter strips are used. Wider buffers may be necessary where there is
limiting site characteristics such as soil or slope. Proposals for narrower buffer
distances must be supported by technical advice. Due regard also must be
given to relevant planning requirements that specify buffers.

Table 4.9: Recommended buffer distances to water resources and public areas
Separation
Separation distance
distance (low (medium to
strength high
Sensitive area effluent) strength) Impact of concern/comments
Natural waterbodies (e.g. 50 m 50 m Protection of water quality and

rivers, lakes) aquatic ecosystems. Supplementary
requirements may be included for
human sourced effluent to protect
public health in recreation areas.
Other waters (e.g. artificial Site-specific Site-specific Protection of water quality for most
waters with beneficial uses, sensitive water uses of the
small streams, intermittent potentially affected waterbody.
streams, water distribution
and drainage channels,
farm dams)
Domestic well used for Site-specific 250 m Groundwater quality for domestic
household water supply human uses protected.
Town water supply bores Site-specific 1000 m Water and groundwater quality for
drinking water supply protected.
Town bores generally pump at high
rates and draw water from a large
area.
1
Where spray irrigation 50 m 50 m Avoidance of spray drift of effluent
gives rise to aerosols near containing pathogens offsite.
houses, schools, playing Buffers for odours and noise have
fields, roads, public open separate assessment criteria and
space and waterbodies these are assessed on a site-
specific basis.
Other sensitive areas (e.g. Site-specific 250 m Greater buffer distances and
waters in drinking water management may be required in
catchments, aquatic some circumstances to protect
ecosystems with high drinking water (e.g. within the
conservation value, Sydney Drinking Water Catchment
wetlands, native stands of the Sydney Catchment Authority
vegetation) would seek a buffer of 100 metres in
the absence of other evidence of a
neutral or beneficial effect on water
quality).
Notes: 1. Recommended in ARMCANZ, ANZECC and NHMRC (2000) for the spray application of
reclaimed water from sewerage systems.
Separation distances for reuse of treated sewage should also be compared

with Guidelines for Sewerage Systems – Use of Reclaimed Water (ANZECC,
ARMCANZ and NHMRC 2000) which apply to spray irrigation of municipal
sewage effluent.
Preference should be given to locating irrigation sites down hydraulic
gradient of household and town bores used for potable supply. Hydraulic
gradient often corresponds with topographic gradient. Regional offices of
DIPNR should be contacted for details of registered water bores. Supporting
technical advice should consider the existing groundwater condition, the
quality and quantity of effluent and the management of the irrigation system.
See also Section 2.6, Groundwater.
It should be noted that separation distances are not a substitute for effective
effluent irrigation system design. The impacts of deficiencies in design, such
as soil and water degradation through the loading of soils with salts and/or
nutrients, may be delayed by the use of large buffer zones but they will not be
avoided or overcome through the use of this strategy. Separation distances
and buffer zones are the final strategy available to provide a margin of safety
to the range of impact mitigation designed throughout the system. The
quality of the effluent, the irrigation method used and the nature of the
environment within which the scheme is located will determine the size and
composition of buffer zones.
In summary, the most appropriate buffer zone will be one that complements
best effluent irrigation practices in providing a margin of safety against the
possibility of nutrient pollution, aerosol drift and human and animal health
impacts, without unnecessarily restricting the efficiency of the enterprise or
amenity of adjacent land uses. Determination of the optimal buffer zone for a
particular land use mix can only be determined following an assessment of
the effluent irrigation practices proposed and the sensitivity of the receiving
environment.
4.11 Irrigation
Methods
Irrigation methods used depend on site topography, soil type, the species of
plants to be grown, cost, effluent quality, labour availability, power
requirements and public health and environment considerations. Effluent
generally should be applied to the site by trickle, spray or drip irrigation, to
avoid over-application and unintended environmental effects that could occur
with furrow or flood irrigation systems. Use of the latter may indicate the
need for laser levelled sites.
The infiltration rate of soil is an important consideration in the type of
irrigation method used and the way it is operated. Effluent should be applied
uniformly and at a rate less then the nominal infiltration rate to avoid surface
runoff.
In drip or trickle irrigation, pressurised water is discharged through micro-
emitters. The water is dripped thereby minimising the risk of aerosols. In
spray irrigation, water is pumped through pipelines and discharged through
sprinklers that can vary from high pressure ‘big guns’ that can generate
aerosol drifts of up to 1 km, to small low pressure microsprays that minimise
the risk of aerosol drift and reduce the potential for odour. High pressure
systems should only be used for effluent which meets the pathogen reduction
criteria for use on raw human food crops given in Appendix 1, with buffer
distances determined according to the principles given in Section 4.10. High
pressure systems should not be used when weather conditions are such that
spray drift will be excessive.
Flood irrigation methods include border check, border ditch, basin, contour
bank, hillside and furrow irrigation. Flood irrigation generates little or no

aerosol activity and gives an even distribution of nutrients in properly
designed, laser graded systems. The potentially greater risks to groundwater
should be managed by application of the principles given in Section 2.6.
Spray and drip/trickle irrigation systems usually involve higher capital and
operating costs than flood or furrow systems, but also provide better
operational flexibility and may provide greater water use efficiency. Costs of
permanent spray systems may be high, however, centre pivots, travelling
irrigators and semi-permanent spray systems can have a much lower capital
cost per hectare than some drip systems.
Underground irrigation systems were being extensively trialed at the time of
writing this document. Advice should be sought from irrigation specialists
when these systems are being considered.
Suitable irrigation areas

Irrigation should only be applied to areas that are deemed suitable for
irrigation from soil and groundwater analyses as described in Section 2.
However, the results of soil suitability assessments may show irregular or
disconnected ‘suitable areas’. There are also practical difficulties irrigating
‘oddly shaped’ areas.
Where conventional spray systems (e.g. centre pivots, bike shifts, etc.) are
being used there may be a need to incorporate small areas of `unsuitable land’
within the nominal irrigation area. As far as possible, practical methods to
minimise or avoid irrigation of these small areas of unsuitable land must be
considered in designing the scheme.
Irrigation scheduling
The scheduling of irrigation is one of the most important functions of the
irrigation manager. Excessively long intervals without irrigation can lead to
water stress and crop loss. Irrigating too often can waterlog the soil and allow
excess effluent to runoff or percolate to groundwater, polluting both
groundwater and surface water. To ensure that the application site is not
overloaded, an irrigation schedule should be based on knowledge of the
water content of the soil and the water requirements of the cultivated crop.
There are direct and indirect methods available to estimate the water content
of a soil. Direct methods rely on insertion of soil moisture monitors (e.g.
neutron probes) at representative sites within the system. Indirect
measurements estimate plant evapotranspiration by taking direct
measurements of rainfall, temperature and sometimes evaporation and
converting these through recognised models into predicted
evapotranspiration for the particular crop being grown.
Generally, it is advisable to irrigate the soil to allow a 5 to 10 mm soil water
deficit. This allows for a buffer capacity in the soil should rain fall soon after
an irrigation event.
The design must allow for adequate resting periods between irrigation to
avoid rainfall runoff. For most plant systems a soil moisture deficit of at least
30 mm should be allowed to accrue before further irrigation takes place.
Storage management
Management of wet weather storage is an important aspect of ensuring that
the environmental impact of an irrigation system is minimised. Storage dams
must be managed to ensure that they have the capacity to store effluent
during wet weather. This means that irrigation needs to be carefully
scheduled and carried out to ensure that the maximum amount of effluent is
applied without causing undesirable impacts such as waterlogging or runoff.
Overflows from full reuse schemes will occur at the frequency used to design
the system, on average. Overflows are most likely after a prolonged period of
low evaporation, perhaps where there has been continual rain in later winter.
However, this might not always coincide with high stream flows and
therefore the in-stream dilution might not be high.
Precautionary discharges can be used to ensure that discharge occurs when
conditions will minimise environmental impacts (rather than uncontrolled
overflows as discussed in Section 4.2.) This approach is only permitted when
licence conditions expressly allow it to occur. Licence conditions will include
an in-stream trigger flow, a time horizon or lower flow limit as well as
volume and effluent quality limits. The conditions will be designed to ensure
that a higher load than would otherwise occur is not discharged.

5. Operation and Management Considerations
Irrigating with effluent should be governed by clearly defined and
documented procedures, and should employ best management practices. To
ensure sustainability, operational and management procedures must address
the environmental performance objectives outlined in Section 1, paying
particular attention to: controlling surface water and groundwater pollution;
maintaining soil quality with respect to organic, nutrient and contaminant
loading; and maintaining community amenity.
An effective effluent irrigation system will include:
• efficient irrigation facilities for applying effluent to the site
• a control system to adjust the effluent application rates or other factors to
maintain optimum performance
• wet weather storage facilities where appropriate
• where appropriate, tailwater and stormwater runoff controls, including a
recovery system to capture and recycle any stormwater runoff (the need
for these will depend on effluent quality, topographical conditions at the
site and the sensitivity of the environment downstream of the effluent
irrigation area)
• effluent discharge facilities where discharge of some effluent to waterways
is expected
• effluent transport facilities to convey the effluent to the site
• a site-specific management plan detailing the necessary procedures to
maintain optimum performance of the irrigation system and satisfy
statutory requirements
• a monitoring system to measure, record and identify any action to ensure
the environmental performance of the system.
5.1 Site management plans

Site management plans are plans prepared by operators to identify potential
environmental impacts from their operations and measures to minimise these
impacts. They are a tool under planning legislation and may be required by
consent authorities such as local councils or the DIPNR as part of a
development consent or other licence or approval.
DEC encourages the development of site management plans as part of good
environmental management, but under most circumstances will not require
these plans using its regulatory instruments. The main reason for this
approach is that DEC believes that environmental management plans should
be used as a management tool, as part of a commitment to wider
environmental management and integrated with other operational plans,
rather than solely to meet DEC or local council requirements. Also, requiring
a plan by licence condition can reduce the flexibility of operators to meet
5. Operation and management considerations 65

environmental outcomes by seeking out the most cost effective management
approach for their circumstances.
Where a site management plan is prepared it could include:
• all information collected in the site selection process (see Section 2)
• statutory requirements relating to the protection of the environment and
public health
• a copy of any relevant licences or approvals where applicable
• if appropriate, how responsibilities are shared between effluent suppliers
and irrigators
• site access arrangements
• effluent transport and storage arrangements
• maximum loading rates
• the irrigation system, its management and operation of its control system
• soil erosion control
• stormwater control arrangements
• cropping practices for nutrient use
• monitoring, reporting and control systems.
5.2 Control systems

Control systems are used to minimise risks of environmental pollution caused
by poor initial design, human error, weather conditions, or faulty equipment.
The application of the correct amount of effluent can be controlled through
manual or automated techniques. For example, the soil moisture deficit can be
simply computed using monthly average evapotranspiration and actual
rainfall events. Irrigation is then applied according to the size of the deficit.
The irrigator will need to know how much water is being delivered by the
irrigation system over a given area. At a more sophisticated level, soil
moisture monitors can be used to determine when irrigation is needed. These
can be linked to a computer system.
Both methods are likely to give false results under certain circumstances and
other controls must be put in place to mitigate against these. For example,
regular checks of soil moisture in the topsoil should be made before and after
an irrigation event to ensure firstly that the soil is dry and needs irrigation
and secondly to ensure that the soil is not overly wet or dry after the event.
Anemometers may be used to determine wind speed and predict the direction
and extent of spray drift and may be used to cut off irrigated systems under
high wind conditions. Wind activated systems may be used to stop or start
the irrigation when wind conditions suit. Cut off wind speed may be
determined from a consideration of proximity to public or sensitive areas,
wind speed and direction, height and droplet size and the type of irrigation
system used.

The use of vegetative screens (e.g. shrubs, small trees) within buffer zones can
control spray drift.
Monitoring systems, runoff and runon controls and signage, discussed below,
are other examples of control mechanisms.
Control systems are particularly important where high strength effluents are
being used and/or the surrounding environment is particularly susceptible to
the effects of pollution.
5.3 Monitoring systems

Monitoring allows scheme operators to keep track of potential impacts so that
they can adjust their management practices to prevent those impacts from
reaching unacceptable levels. Monitoring results assist in demonstrating due
diligence in the protection of public health, agriculture, human and animal
food chains and the environment.
Monitoring programs should be developed to ensure that all public health,
agricultural resource and environmental risks are monitored to provide
sufficient data to manage the relative risk each poses. Those components of
the effluent irrigation scheme and its environment with the greatest risks
will require more intensive monitoring than low risk components.
Tools to assist in this process include the following:
• Analysing the strength of the effluent. High strength effluents will require
more intensive monitoring of all the components of the effluent irrigation
system than low strength effluents.
• Use of the various models described in Section 4. For example, a nutrient
budget can be used to indicate the likelihood of nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) leaking to the environment if N and P concentrations are
higher in the effluent than predicted, or plant uptake is less than
predicted. (If there is a significant risk, then a monitoring program
targeting N and P in effluent, soils and groundwater is indicated –
however, if the risk appears low, then monitoring these constituents only
in the effluent may be appropriate).
• Comparison of soil properties with Table 2.2. If soils at the proposed irrigation
site have a number of moderate to severe limitations, then there is more
likely to be adverse environmental impacts than if the soils had nil to
slight limitations. For example, soils with high Ksat are more likely to leak
nutrients to the groundwater table and hence indicate that there should be
consideration of monitoring of any sensitive groundwater table within 10
metres of the soil surface.
• Proximity to sensitive areas. For example, groundwater lying within 10
metres of the surface, particularly if is of good quality, is more likely to be
adversely affected by an effluent irrigation scheme, than a deep or poor
quality resource.

Another factor to consider in developing a monitoring program is that some
impacts can occur in the first years of the scheme while other, but equally
important impacts are unlikely to appear until later. For example, nitrate is
very mobile and an excess loading of this constituent could appear in an ‘at
risk’ groundwater source early, whereas phosphorus is likely to be absorbed
into the soil over many years before it leaches to any groundwater table. In
the latter case early intensive monitoring of the groundwater table for P may
give a false degree of confidence in the scheme.
In addition, small increases in measured properties may not be a concern
unless they result in a downgrading of the plant, soil or water resource. For
example, even in a `sustainable’ effluent irrigation scheme it is likely that
some soil constituents (e.g. salt and sodium) could increase in the first few
years as the soil adjusts to its new environmental regime. However, if the
scheme is managed properly, this increase should slow and become stable
within the first 5 to 10 years.
Monitoring is a costly process and it is important to design a monitoring
program that gives sound information at an affordable cost. There is a range
of guidelines and standards available that provides information on sampling
techniques (e.g. ANZECC (2000); AS/NZS 5667.1:1998 : Water quality -
Sampling (Standards Australia 1998)). The practical limitations of monitoring
(e.g. preserving samples in remote areas) should also be recognised and
alternatives considered.
The following monitoring recommendations are a guide only and provide a
basis for tailoring a monitoring program to an individual scheme. It is
important that any monitoring program is site-specific and takes account of the
above considerations. Detailed investigation of effluent, soil, surface waters and
groundwater should be conducted prior to the commencement of effluent
irrigation, to identify the size of environmental risks and to provide baseline
data for future monitoring.
Frequency of sampling
Frequency (how often) and intensity (number of samples) of monitoring will
depend on the type and scale of the scheme, sensitivity of the site and trends
identified in any previous monitoring.
Provided impacts are not hidden for the first few years of a scheme (as would
be the case with phosphorus), a rigorous monitoring program is
recommended during the commissioning phase of effluent reuse schemes.
The sampling frequency and number of test constituents could then be
reduced, based on satisfactory historical records and subject to negotiation
with any relevant government agency (e.g. DEC, local councils, DIPNR and
NSW Health). If performance values exceed those indicated in the design of
the effluent scheme, then sampling frequencies should be increased, and the
irrigation management program should be adjusted accordingly.
Recommendations on sampling frequency are provided below (see Table 5.1).

Effluent
As soon as practicable, effluent should be characterised for all the constituents
outlined in Section 2. However, where inputs into the effluent are well known
(e.g. in many effluents produced by industry), only those constituents likely
to be present in the effluent need to be monitored. DEC or relevant local
council may require scheme proponents to justify their effluent monitoring
program. It is possible that there are other constituents in effluent with
potential to pollute that have not been identified in Section 3. In this case the
onus is on the scheme proponent to discuss these with DEC or local council
when developing the monitoring program.
Appendix 1 provides monitoring guidelines for sewage treatment plant (STP)
effluent in regard to disinfection. Advice should be sought from NSW Health
and/or NSW Department of Primary Industries with regard to the need for
monitoring disinfection levels in effluents other than that produced by STPs.
Table 5.1 provides generalised guidance for unlicensed schemes that follow
all the practices outlined in this guideline and do not have limiting site
characteristics. It is generalised due to the range of scheme sizes and effluent
types that may be irrigated, different end uses, and variable site-specific
factors. Schemes should monitor more frequently those effluent characteristics
that will impact on the sustainability of a scheme. Some constituents may not
be relevant for some effluent types. Refer to industry-specific guidelines,
where available, for key constituents and sampling relevant to each industry.
Licensed premises will be required to monitor effluent in accordance with
the licence or load-based licensing protocols or propose an alternative
monitoring program approved by the load-based licensing Technical
Review Panel.

Table 5.1: Recommended effluent sampling frequency
1
Constituent Low strength Medium strength High strength
TSS Quarterly Quarterly Monthly
Oil and grease Biannually Quarterly Quarterly
Total P Biannually Quarterly Quarterly
Total N Biannually Quarterly Quarterly
BOD5 Quarterly Quarterly Monthly
PH Quarterly Quarterly Monthly
EC dS/m; TDS Quarterly Quarterly Monthly
Cations Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
SAR (√(meq/L)) Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly

2 2
Metals Yearly Yearly Yearly
2 2
Ocs Yearly Yearly Yearly
2 2
Herbicides Yearly Yearly Yearly
3 3 3
Thermotolerant use specific use specific use specific
coliforms (cfu/100ml)
Other Advice should be Advice should be Advice should be

sought from the sought from the sought from the
Department of Department of Department of
Environment and Environment and Environment and
Conservation or local Conservation or local Conservation or local
4 4 4
council council council
Notes: 1. Units are in mg/L unless otherwise stated.
2. Higher frequencies will be required where these constituents are the constituents that
determine the medium or high strength classification.
3. See Appendix 1 for municipal sewage. Other effluents may not require monitoring for
thermotolerant coliforms (see Section 3.10). Obtain advice from NSW Health and/or NSW
Department of Primary Industries.
4. Seek advice from the appropriate regulatory authority (see Section 6.1).
5. BOD5 may be replaced by tests such as chemical oxygen demand provided the relationship
between the two measurements is established.
Soil
Soil characteristics of the application site should be established when
designing the project as described in Section 2. In addition, plant nutrient
levels in the root zone should be established.
Soil sampling should be performed or supervised by a qualified person with
knowledge of soil science (e.g. Certified Professional Soil Scientist, CPSS),
accredited by the Australian Society of Soil Science Incorporated.
Soil samples should be taken in close proximity to the initial soil sampling
locations. These initial locations are likely to be one every 2 to 20 hectares
depending on the geological complexity and the size of the proposed
irrigation site. As discussed in Section 2, an EM survey can be used to identify
these initial sampling sites.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries has recommended a soil
sampling strategy (after completion of initial site characterisation) in Table 5.2
for surface and profile soil samples at each soil location as follows.
• A composite soil sample of 40 soil cores per 1–2 ha, taken at a depth of 0-
10 cm.
• Composite soil samples of 5 cores at four depth intervals to 1 metre, within
a 5 metre diameter plot. The four depths should fall within 0–20, 20–40,
40–70 and 70–100 cm depth increments, and positioned within major soil
horizons or layers.
The soil should be monitored for those constituents shown in Table 5.2,
annually for three years. The results should then be reviewed to determine
the appropriate frequency of sampling and the range of test constituents for
future monitoring (e.g. some soil chemical properties change slowly while
other properties such as salinity, chloride and nitrates change more rapidly).
Existing schemes will often have sufficient data available to determine an
appropriate long-term frequency.
Sampling for heavy metals and persistent organic chemicals in soil should
reflect the risk identified in initial soil and effluent characterisation (e.g. levels
in the effluent are close to or above guideline limits (ANZECC & ARMCANZ
2000), or initial soil sampling reveals topsoil levels are close to the maximum
permitted concentrations specified in Table 4.6). A maximum sampling
interval for soil of up to 10 years may be used where heavy metals or
persistent organic chemicals are at background levels in soil and levels based
on routine effluent monitoring will not lead to significant accumulation over
the projected life of the system.
Permeability testing (hydraulic conductivity) may be required if permeability
has been initially identified as a moderate or severe limitation, or if effluent
has been identified as potentially negatively impacting on soil permeability
(e.g. due to high SAR).
Monitoring soil constituents such as cation exchange capacity and organic
matter can provide information to help ensure good agronomic conditions.
Changes in some soil properties such as permeability are difficult to measure
with any precision. However, changes in permeability are likely in effluent
irrigation schemes because of the effect of salt and sodium on this soil
property. Managers of the irrigation scheme should check for changes in
permeability by noting uncharacteristic waterlogging either within the
irrigation area (indicating a reduction in soil permeability) or downslope of
the irrigation area which could be due to an increase in irrigation area
permeability or over irrigation. These observations should be related to any
measurements of changes in soil sodicity/salinity to see if there is a
relationship. In sodic impermeable soils, applications of lime or gypsum will,
over time, increase the soil’s permeability. However, solving any increased
permeability in soil is complex and requires specialist advice.
See Section 7.2, Further Reading, for references on soil analysis.

Table 5.2: Recommended soil monitoring strategy
Frequency of sampling
Soil profile at four depth

1
Constituent Surface soil increments
pH (no units) Annually Annually
Electrical conductivity (EC) Annually Annually

(dS/m)
Nitrate-N Annually Annually
Total N After 3 years N/A
Available P Annually N/A
Total P After 3 years Every 3 years
Exchangeable sodium Annually Every 3 years

percentage
3
Heavy metals and pesticides After 10 years N/A
2
P sorption capacity (kg/ha) After 3 years (site-specific) Every 3 years (site-specific)
Notes: 1. mg/L unless otherwise stated.

2. As recommended by an accredited laboratory or soil scientist.
3. Or more frequently if any are identified/calculated as a particular risk factor in effluent.
Surface waters
Surface waters should be analysed several times before effluent irrigation
(upstream and downstream of the effluent reuse site, if relevant), following
storms and during high flows. Thereafter, depending on the frequency of
effluent discharge and the strength of the effluent, a sampling program
should be developed as necessary to determine and manage any impacts, or
in accordance with licensing requirements for licensed premises.
Licensed premises will be required to monitor waters in accordance with
the licence or load-based licensing protocols (or propose an alternative
monitoring program approved by the load-based licensing Technical
Review Panel).
Monitoring should be conducted in a manner consistent with the sample
collection, handling and preservation principles enunciated in the current
version of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
(APHA, 1998). Monitoring samples should be analysed for water pollutants
by the methods set out in the DEC’s Approved Methods for the Sampling and
Analysis of Water Pollutants in NSW (DEC 2004). Australian Guidelines for Water
Quality Monitoring and Reporting (ANZECC 2000) provides detailed
information on appropriate monitoring methods.
In general, water monitoring must provide data that is representative of the
waterbody and is able to indicate contributions of any pollutants as a result of
the scheme (compared to contributions of similar pollutants from upstream
sources).

Attributes to be measured in surface waters include:
• pH (no units)
• EC (dS/m)
• thermotolerant coliforms (cfu/100 mL)
• BOD5 (mg/L)
• N: total, oxidised nitrogen and ammonia (mg/L)
• P: total and plant-available (mg/L).
Groundwater
Groundwater need only be monitored if it is within 10 metres of the ground
surface and/or if the existing groundwater quality is at risk from the effluent
irrigation scheme. Groundwater sampling should occur on the established
enterprises before crop planting, during the middle of the crop growth and
quarterly/yearly thereafter (see below). Where the depth is shallow or where
the soils are highly permeable, monthly monitoring may be appropriate.
Hydraulic gradients should be considered when establishing groundwater
monitoring. Monitoring any potential impacts on groundwater drinking
water supplies also may be required (see also Section 2.6, Groundwater).
Attributes to be measured in groundwaters include:
Quarterly
• groundwater height: monitor at regular intervals where the groundwater
is above 3 metres
• pH (no units)
• EC (dS/m)
Annually (site specific)
• Cations (mg/L)
• N: total and nitrate (mg/L)
• P: total and plant-available (mg/L)
Plants
Sampling of crops or pastures is good practice to determine the adequacy of
any fertiliser and irrigation program. Plant sampling may be required if
unacceptable levels of trace contaminants have been identified in the system.
Trace elements of concern should be measured at harvest, or as appropriate.
Advice should be sought from specialist agronomists or plant pathologists if
there are noticeable yield problems or unusual colourations develop on the
leaf foliage.

Animals
Sampling of food animals, pets, birds or native animals may be required if
unacceptable levels of microorganisms or contaminants are found in effluents,
soils or plants to which they have been exposed. Sampling may also be
required if the animals are associated with particularly sensitive
environments or markets. Monitoring should also occur when contamination
is possible and the size of the risk is not known. Advice should be sought
from specialist veterinarians and animal pathologists.
5.4 Tailwater and stormwater runoff control

Under Sections 120–123 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act
1997, it is an offence to pollute waters and there are severe penalties for doing
so. Accordingly, a key environmental performance objective is to ensure that
ground and surface waters do not become contaminated by any flow from
irrigation areas, including effluent, stormwater runoff or contaminated sub-
surface flow. Runoff diversion measures may be needed to prevent
uncontaminated runoff entering the irrigation area, and a runoff collection
and storage system to prevent contaminated runoff from the irrigation site
entering surface waters.
For low strength effluents these risks may be managed without the need for
runoff diversion and collection systems provided suitable soils and
topographic sites are selected, there is a buffer zone between the irrigation
area and the water resource and a deficit irrigation regime is used. By leaving
a small soil moisture deficit after each irrigation event, small rainfall events
will not generate runoff and the runoff from large rainfall events is more
likely to be of acceptable quality.
For medium and high strength effluents, runoff diversions and collection
management are usually required. The following section describes some of
the methods that can be used to ensure that runoff does not cause pollution,
other techniques and management approaches can be used successfully.
Uncontaminated runoff diversion

Runoff diversion is used to divert uncontaminated runoff (originating from
outside the irrigation area) away from the irrigation area. Measures include
banks, gutters, drains and strategically locating irrigation areas in relation to
natural land slopes so that external runoff drains away from, rather than
towards, the irrigation area. Operators should consider runoff diversion
wherever the local terrain directs uncontaminated runoff onto the irrigation
area.
Contaminated runoff collection

Tailwater
Where irrigation can be applied evenly and at a rate that does not result in
surface ponding and consequently runoff, a terminal system to collect runoff
from the irrigation area may not be required. However, for medium and high

strength effluents sound demonstration of how a nil runoff situation will be
achieved will be required (for example there are no nearby waters and the
terrain is flat with low erodibility). Flood and furrow irrigation systems will
always require a tailwater collection system.
Stormwater runoff
The extent to which runoff from storms must be retained depends upon the
nature and magnitude of the water pollution that might result from the
discharge. Other variables include rainfall distribution and land management
practices.
With terminal systems, initial calculations should be based on collecting the
volume equivalent to 12 mm of rainfall runoff from effluent utilisation areas.
In non-sensitive locations, alternative measures such as vegetative buffers or
artificial wetlands may be used to manage the 12 mm of stormwater runoff.
The performance of vegetative buffers can be variable (see Section 4.10,
Separation distances and the management of buffer zones).
A collection system usually consists of catch drains that direct the runoff to a
terminal collection pond and a system to return the collected runoff to the
effluent storage facility and/or the irrigation supply system. In some systems,
the catch drains may need to include deep drains to collect sub-surface flows.
However deep drains should be avoided on potential acid sulfate soils.
Ideally, where a system is needed, it would be designed to collect all tailwater
and stormwater leaving the irrigation area. In practice, though, the system is
usually designed to collect the tailwater and the most contaminated “first
flush” stormwater. Provision should be made for any subsequent less
contaminated stormwater to by-pass the terminal pond via a well-vegetated
flow-way.
To function properly, terminal ponds should have sufficient length and depth
to detain the flow of runoff long enough for solids to settle out and to collect
the maximum volume of tailwater and/or stormwater runoff from the
system. If tailwater is not generated from the irrigation system itself, the
terminal pond should only be large enough to collect and store the
stormwater runoff. In a situation where the collection of tailwater and
stormwater runoff is necessary, the terminal pond should have a capacity to
retain both the volume of the effluent irrigation tailwater and the stormwater
runoff from the effluent utilisation areas.
5.5 Site access

Public access may need to be restricted during and immediately after
irrigation of sewage effluent to prevent direct contact with effluent. Effluent
quality criteria for treated sewage is described in Appendix 1. In most cases,
effluent from intensive animal industries is unlikely to be irrigated in areas
with regular public access, however appropriate occupational health and
safety precautions should be taken.

In all areas with public access, all pipes and taps must be colour coded and/or
signs marked, for example: ‘EFFLUENT - NOT FOR DRINKING’. International
diagram signs for non-English speakers may be necessary. Childproof taps
should be used to prevent children from drinking non-potable water. Signs
should be visible from the main point of access advising the type of reuse and
any relevant restrictions to the public. Australian Standard, AS 1319–1994, Safety
Signs in the Occupational Environment (Standards Australia 1994) should be
referred to. On private properties appropriate signage for site workers and
visitors should be provided. Special signage requirements may be needed in
some circumstances.
NSW Health can provide advice in regard to site-specific requirements for
access and signage.
5.6 Occupational health and safety issues

The maintenance of employee health and safety is a responsibility of the
employer, and the operator of the effluent irrigation system must provide a
safe working environment, including:
• ensuring that employees are not placed at risk through exposure to
effluent
• providing adequate training so that employees can work safely and
responsibly
• providing well-documented work and emergency procedures, and ensure
that employees are trained to use them
• conducting regular educational and training programs to ensure up-to-
date knowledge for employees
• providing employees with appropriate protective equipment, such as
impervious gloves and footwear, protective masks, hats and clothing that
will reduce their risk of exposure to the effluent
• ensuring the effective and safe operation of all equipment
• ensuring maintenance of all equipment
• ensuring that employees develop and maintain good personal hygiene,
such as washing their hands before eating or smoking while at work, and
before leaving work
• providing, where appropriate, medical assessments of employees.
WorkCover NSW or occupational health and safety experts should be
consulted on these issues whenever doubt exists.
5.7 Plant and animal health

Preservation of biodiversity should be considered in the management of
effluent reuse schemes. Maintenance of plant health and productivity is good
practice and operational controls to preserve the purity of food entering the
human and animal food chains is essential.

Where effluents are irrigated onto grazing pasture or fodder crops, it is good
practice to adopt precautions to reduce risks to animal health and
productivity. Risk management procedures including appropriate effluent
treatment and controls should be built into an irrigation scheme to protect
animal health and consumers of animal products, and ensure that animal
diseases are not spread. Detrimental outcomes can include:
• reduction of intake or refusal to drink water due to taints, salinity etc.
• clinical illness from ingestion of pathogens and toxins
• amplified carrier status of animal and human pathogens
• exceedance of legal limits for chemical residues in edible body tissues,
milk, eggs, etc.
• reduction in the productivity of pastures or crops
• adverse effects on soil physical, chemical and biological health
• chemical and microbiological contamination of human food crops.
The risks can be greatest when effluent is sourced from the same or similar
species of animals (e.g. irrigation of washdown water from dairy farms,
irrigation of abattoir effluent onto grazing pastures). Practices to minimise
risks include:
• ensuring stock are healthy and vaccinated against diseases where
appropriate
• not allowing animals to drink effluent
• promoting sound animal health and hygienic work practices through good
farm design and management
• applying effluent straight after grazing (not before) and use of rotational
grazing
• irrigating on short pastures so that effluent is exposed to more wind and
sunlight which speeds up the drying and pathogen die-off process (short
pastures also provide a better system for washing the effluent down into
the soil. It also allows greater uptake of nutrients by short pastures, which
leads to increased pasture growth)
• avoid grazing short or muddy pastures which may increase topsoil
ingestion
• withholding stock from irrigation areas for at least 4 hours and up to 10
days (see Appendix 1 for effluent sourced from STPs ). The time should be
extended if there are likely to be faecal coliforms in excess of 1000
cfu/100mL, animal effluents are being used or prolonged wet conditions
are experienced
• not using effluent irrigated paddocks for newborn animals with wet
navels or animals with fresh castration or branding wounds

• not exposing pigs to reclaimed water from sewage treatment plants or to
crops exposed to sewage reclaimed water to prevent the organism Taenia
solium from establishing a life cycle in Australia
• not using pigs or poultry on irrigated areas as they naturally dig and
disturb soil
• manage lactating dairy cattle with extra care due to their susceptibility to
udder infections
• ensuring crop and pasture species selected are appropriate for effluent
irrigation. This applies to their tolerance to salinity, and for human food
crops, the risk of direct contact with effluent and how the crops are treated
or processed prior to consumption
• avoiding the excessive accumulation of salts or contaminants within the
soil profile by strict adherence to the approved effluent irrigation
management plan.
Further information may also be obtained from the NSW Department of
Primary Industries, relevant animal industry associations and animal health
professionals.
5.8 Reporting on scheme performance

Monitoring results and other scheme performance information should be
routinely reported to the appropriate regulatory authority, consent authority
or DIPNR when required. Formal reporting may also be required as a licence
condition for significant systems. These procedures would enable the operator
and DEC to assess the ongoing performance of the irrigation system. Follow-
up action will be taken for systems that are not adequately performing. For
non-licensed premises, an annual review of the monitoring results and other
information will ensure that the effluent irrigation scheme is sustainable.
5.9 Transfer of effluent to other users

Establishing the commercial responsibilities of suppliers and users of effluent
can be achieved through the development of agreements between the effluent
supplier and the user. Effluent suppliers might agree to supply effluent of a
certain quality while effluent users might agree to receive a nominated
amount of effluent. For schemes subject to load-based licensing, refer to the
load-based licensing protocol in regard to licence fee discounts for transferred
effluent.

6. Statutory Requirements
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is a statutory body with
specific powers under environment protection legislation. In September
2003, the EPA became part of the Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC).
This chapter outlines the types of statutory approvals that may be required
before proceeding with effluent irrigation.
Specific statutory obligations may be imposed under health, environmental,
agricultural and/or food legislation in NSW and may be a condition of land
development. In addition, wastewater treatment plant owners, operators and
end-users may be liable under common law and under the Trade Practices Act
1974 for the use of effluent that causes harm.
It is strongly recommended that any proposal for an effluent irrigation system
be discussed at the early planning stage with DEC or local council and other
regulatory or advisory authorities such as the NSW Department of Primary
Industries, DIPNR, NSW Health, NSW Food Authority and WorkCover NSW.
Appendix 5 summarises the regulatory or advisory information each agency
can provide. Appendix 6 lists the DEC offices.
6.1 Environment Protection Licences

This guideline provides a basis for reducing the risk of pollution from effluent
irrigation to a minimum. The requirements of an Environment Protection
Licence are contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
(POEO Act). Unless specifically required to be licensed under the POEO Act,
an environment protection licence is not likely to be required for effluent
irrigation schemes operating in accordance with this guideline. The EPA will,
however, continue to regulate, through licenses, where it believes a premise
poses a risk of environmental harm or to address noise, waste, air or odour
pollution issues which are not covered in this Guideline.
Background
The POEO Act replaces the five media-specific pollution control Acts: Clean
Air Act 1961, Clean Waters Act 1970, Pollution Control Act 1970, Noise Control
Act 1975 and Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989. It also incorporates
all premises and activity based regulatory functions of the Waste Minimisation
and Management Act 1995.
The POEO Act established a system of Environment Protection Licences, to
minimise and control the impact of activities on the surrounding
environment. Under the POEO Act, the EPA is the relevant authority for an
activity whenever:
(a) the activity is listed on Schedule 1 of the POEO Act
(b) a licence to control water pollution from the activity has been granted,
or
6. Statutory requirements 79
(c) a public authority is carrying out the activity or is occupying the
premises where the activity occurs.
The licence can deal with the impact of an activity on any environmental
media in both the construction and operating phases. This means the potential
impacts of an activity on air quality (including odour), water quality, noise
pollution and/or the waste stream can all be dealt with in the one licence. The
licence is ongoing, but will be reviewed at least once every three years.
There is no longer a need to obtain separate EPA approvals and licences. A
single licence can cover both the construction phase (scheduled development
work) and the operation phase for a scheduled activity.
When is a licence required?

Scheduled activities
Schedule 1 of the POEO Act is the ‘Schedule of EPA-licensed activities.’ A
licence is always required for Scheduled activities. Whenever effluent
irrigation is ancillary to a Scheduled activity, the licence associated with the
Scheduled activity may also include conditions relating to the effluent
irrigation.
The Schedule generally provides a definition of each activity, and threshold
criteria, which set the minimum size of an activity that requires a licence.
The Schedule includes Irrigation Corporations on the list of EPA-licensed
activities. They are required to obtain a licence for their irrigation activities,
independently of whether water, effluent or reused tail water is being used
for irrigation.
Apart from that, effluent irrigation is not specifically listed in the Schedule,
therefore it does not generally have to be licensed.
Some of the industries listed in the Schedule may consider re-using their
effluent in irrigation activities. Examples include agricultural produce
industries, breweries, livestock intensive industries (e.g. piggeries), livestock
processing industries (such as tanneries), paper or pulp industries, municipal
sewage treatment plants and others.
For those activities on Schedule 1, establishing an effluent irrigation system
will not alter their licensing status. That is, they will continue to be licensed
and the licence may include conditions controlling effluent irrigation.
Non-scheduled activities
Non-scheduled activities are any activities other than those listed in the
‘Schedule of EPA-licensed activities.’ The POEO Act does not generally
require non-scheduled activities, which includes effluent irrigation, to be
licensed.
Operators of effluent irrigation schemes should be able to manage their
effluent to avoid pollution of water, i.e. in a manner that meets statutory
obligations and the environmental performance objectives set out in this
guideline. It is an offence to cause or permit any surface or groundwater

pollution unless a person holds a licence that regulates the activity that
caused the pollution and is operating in accordance with the conditions of the
licence.
Site-specific aspects of premises (particularly proximity to sensitive
environments such as waterways) still need to be considered in determining
how potential environmental impacts will be managed. This may involve
licensing of an activity, which is not on Schedule 1 of the POEO Act 1997, or
emphasising to applicants the need to consider site-specific issues when using
guidelines.
The EPA can refuse a licence if it has assessed that the activity is likely to result
in unacceptable levels of pollution, or should be able to avoid pollution by
following appropriate guidelines. The local council would be the Appropriate
Regulatory Authority for the use of effluent at the site of the non-scheduled
activity (unless the EPA considers a licence is necessary). Where the council is
the owner or operator of the non-scheduled activity then the EPA becomes the
Appropriate Regulatory Authority.
Assessing a licence application

In assessing an application for a licence, the EPA will generally follow the
philosophy embodied in the environmental performance objectives set out in
Section 1 of this guideline, in particular the:
• design, operation and maintenance of treatment and irrigation facilities
with respect to environmental pollution control and public health risk
• quality and proposed beneficial use of the effluent
• the process used to select suitable irrigation sites
• the process used to identify maximum effluent loading rates and wet
weather storage requirements
• the proposed site monitoring programs necessary to regulate the general
health of the application site and the adjacent environment
• likelihood of any aerosols or runoff leaving the site, and the measures
proposed to control this pollution
• proximity of the proposed facilities to dwellings, natural watercourses and
public recreation areas.
In considering granting a licence for the use of effluent, the EPA will consider
the guidance set out in this document and the requirements in the POEO Act
(s45), including:
• the pollution being, or likely to be, caused by the applicant and the effect
of that pollution on the environment
• the practical measures that can be taken to:
- prevent, control, abate or mitigate that pollution
- protect the environment from defacement, defilement or deterioration as
a result of that pollution.
The EPA may require proponents to install measures to abate pollution. In
some cases, adoption of such measures may eliminate the need for a licence.
Information to be included when applying for a licence

An application for a licence should include the information outlined below
and the relevant documentation (as well as the design criteria in Table 6.1).
Local councils may have similar information requirements when assessing
proposals that will not be licensed by the EPA.
Planning horizon of the scheme

Effluent characteristics
• source of effluent
• method of treatment and disinfection
• degree of exposure to humans
• effluent quality and quantity (Table 6.1)
• effluent strength and identification of the most limiting constituent which
resulted in the strength classification.
Description of site
• locality map, indicating catchment, Eastings, Northings, AMG Zone and
scale
• current land use
• proximity of site to dwellings and roads, water courses, other property
boundaries, urban areas, areas of natural timber and protected
environmental areas (e.g. wetlands)
• location of existing groundwater bores.
Description of climate
• precipitation analysis (average monthly distribution)
• storm intensities
• evapotranspiration (average monthly distribution)
• prevailing wind (if applicable)
• description of water balance (daily or monthly) used to estimate
maximum hydraulic loading.
Topography/landform
• ground slope and relief
• description of adjacent land
• erosion potential
• drainage features
• seasonal wet areas and springs

• surface rockiness
• flood potential.
Soil characteristics
• type, structure, profile features, colour, texture, electrical conductivity,
cation exchange capacity, exchangeable cations, hydraulic conductivity,
nutrient levels, organic matter, phosphorus sorption capacity, salinity
levels and pH
• infiltration and percolation characteristics.
Groundwater
• depth to groundwater
• location of existing wells on the subject site and adjoining sites
• current use and ambient groundwater chemistry
• an analysis of the hydrogeological conditions under the site
• vulnerability of groundwater systems to pollution.
Surface water
• proximity
• quality and current use
• flow characteristics
• quality of aquatic ecosystems.
Cropping system
• crops/vegetation to be grown
• details of planting and harvesting cycles
• details of cropping or grazing management and practices.
Animal system
• animal species and types to be fed/grazed
• farm design and facilities for animal enterprise
• plan of production and health practices
• exposure of pets, birds and native animals.
Irrigation area and wet weather storage required

• details and results of nutrient, organic, salt and water budgets used to
determine the proposed land area and wet weather storage.
Effluent transport
• detailed plans of effluent transport facilities
• wet weather storage facilities
• detailed plans of effluent storage facilities (including balance ponds) and
any return pumping arrangements.
Irrigation system
• type of irrigation system: spray, trickle, flood or furrow –for spray systems
detail the pressure at which effluent is discharged
• plan of irrigation system
• schematic diagram of the system controls, including pipes, pumps, valves,
timers, alarms and runoff controls
• proposed monitoring program
• analysis of risks to environment from scheme
• how monitoring program was developed in response to risk
• details of components to be monitored
• details of tests to be undertaken
• details of analysis reporting mechanisms.

Table 6.1: Design parameters for effluent irrigation systems
Characteristic Indicator Unit

Effluent quantity average annual design flow kL/day
design peak flow kL/day
Irrigation area hectares
Buffer zone allowance area hectares
width metres
Storage area hectares
Water balance design total annual precipitation mm/yr
design total annual runoff mm/yr
design evapotranspiration mm/yr
design percolation rate mm/yr
Organic loading rate (as BOD5) design daily and annual rate kg/ha/day or year
Other constituents loading rates design daily and annual rate kg/ha/day or year
Effluent quality total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L
electrical conductivity dS/m
sodium adsorption ratio (mmol/L)½
Ca, Mg, K and B mg/L
BOD5 mg/L
TOC mg/L
COD mg/L
suspended solids mg/L
thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100mL
grease mg/L
metals and pesticides mg/L
nitrogen (total) mg/L
phosphorus (total) mg/L
pH –
Application rate length of operating season wk/yr
hourly rate of spray application mm/h
application period hours
average weekly rate mm/wk
maximum weekly rate mm/wk
Storage capacity kL or ML
Note: Section 1 provides a checklist of procedures to follow when setting up an effluent irrigation system
Licence conditions
The standard conditions of a licence include emission/discharge limits and
operating conditions, as well as monitoring, reporting and compliance review
requirements.
Site-specific conditions, however, also may be determined on a case-by-case
basis, depending on the particular environmental characteristics of the
effluent irrigation system. For example, a licence may include conditions
relating to effluent quality and quantity limits.
Operators may be required to produce an annual environmental management
report to enable assessment of the performance of the irrigation scheme. The
requirements of this report will depend on the size of the effluent irrigation
system and the sensitivity of the environment in which the system is located.
6.2 Environmental offences

Proponents should be aware of the range of environmental offences relating
to air, water and noise pollution and conduct their activities accordingly.
It is an offence for the occupier of premises to fail to operate equipment in a
proper and efficient manner, and to fail to maintain equipment in an efficient
condition. Air pollution includes the emission of an offensive odour.
A licence will not protect an occupier from prosecution for these failures.
6.3 Development consent

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) sets out the
requirements for environmental impact assessment for development consent
purposes. Requirements will vary depending on the proposed development
or activity.
Development consent is an approval for development issued by a ‘consent
authority’, often the local council but sometimes also the Minister for
Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. ‘Development’ includes not
only building, but also the use of the land and carrying out works on it.
Environmental planning instruments (such as LEPs, REPs and SEPPs) will
determine if development consent is required for a development proposed for
a certain zone. Therefore, depending on the provisions in the relevant
environmental planning instruments, installing storage tanks or irrigation
pipes may require development consent. Local council is the first point of
contact for advice.
Not all development needs the consent of the local council. For example, in
some areas zoned ‘rural’ many agricultural activities do not require consent.

Part 4 of the EP&A Act
Development proposals that require development consent are subject to the
requirements of Part 4 of the EP&A Act. The development consent process
follows the steps below:
1. Establish if development consent is required. Check the environmental

planning instruments or contact the local council.
2. If consent is required:
• check if approvals by other authorities are required (such as the EPA and
DIPNR). These authorities can stipulate general terms to be included in the
development consent.
• assess need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The types of
development requiring an EIS are listed in Schedule 3 to the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A
Regulation) and are known as designated developments.
• if an EIS is required, obtain Director General’s Requirements from DIPNR
for the preparation of an EIS.
Integrated development assessment (IDA)

Development Applications (DAs) are ‘integrated development’ where certain
licences or approvals are required from bodies other than a consent authority.
Applicants must inform councils of any licences, approvals or permits from
State agencies (such as EPA licences) required in addition to development
consent, prior to lodging a DA. Council is then required to consult with the
relevant State agency and obtain the agency’s requirements in relation to the
development.
A development consent granted by a council must be consistent with the
general terms of approval proposed by the State agency. If the State agency
informs the council that it will not grant an approval, the council must refuse
the application.
Part 5 of the EP&A Act

Activities which are not covered by plan making or development control
processes and thus, do not require development consent, fall under Part 5 of
the EP&A Act. Examples of these activities are public utility installations
undertaken by local councils and government agencies, which have
traditionally been exempted from plans.
The steps to follow where development consent is not required are:
1. establish whether an approval, licence, permit or grant by a public
authority is required
2. consult the determining authority and ascertain whether Part 5 of the
EP&A Act applies
3. assess the need for an EIS. Activities that are likely to significantly affect
the environment require an EIS
4. if an EIS is required, obtain Director General’s Requirements from DIPNR
for the preparation of an EIS.
Further guidance can be found in Is an EIS Required? (DUAP 1995). The
environmental guidelines, EIS: Guidelines for Irrigation of Sewage Effluent
(DUAP 1996) is also available from DIPNR.
Examples
Sewage treatment plants (STPs)
If the proponent is a private organisation, the storage or use of effluent at a
sewage treatment plant would normally require consent under the provisions
of the local environmental plan (LEP) or other environmental planning
instruments. Depending on scale, nature and location, this could be a
designated development, falling within the sewerage systems category of
Schedule 3 of the EP&A Regulation.
If the effluent is used or stored on a site not directly associated with the STP,
then the proposal needs to be characterised to determine if it is permissible
and whether development consent is required under the LEP. When
characterising a proposal, the scale, nature and location of the proposal need
to be considered.
If the proponent is a municipal council or another public authority, the
storage or use of effluent at a municipal STP may not require development
consent under the provisions of SEPP 4 – Development without Consent.
However, environmental impact assessment will proceed in accordance in
Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
SEPP 4 may not apply when the storage or use of effluent is not directly
associated with the STP. In this case, the activity should be characterised to
assess if it is permissible under the relevant environmental planning
instruments.
Agriculture, forestry or landscaping

If effluent is supplied as needed and applied at rates recommended in this
guideline for beneficial purposes, then the application of effluent could be
considered ancillary and subsumed in the purpose of agriculture, forestry or
landscaping. Such a scheme would normally not include any wet weather
storage facilities (except for a balance pond, which would contain no more than
3 days maximum effluent supply). As these purposes do not usually require
consent, the application of the effluent would also not require consent.
Effluent reuse schemes
If a scheme is specifically designed and managed for effluent irrigation, the
LEP would help determine if it is permissible and if consent is required. Such
a scheme would normally include carrying out works and installing
apparatus. If development consent is required, then Schedule 3 of the EP&A

Regulation would help determine if the proposal is designated and an EIS
required.
If development consent is not required, the potential environmental effects
may be assessed under the provisions of Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979. The
determining authority must assess whether the activity has the potential to
cause significant environmental effects before approving an application or
granting funds to undertake a scheme. If significant effects are likely, an EIS
must be prepared, publicly exhibited and considered before approval is
granted.
Some effluent irrigation schemes can require a works approval under the
Water Management Act 2000.
6.4 Other statutory requirements

A number of other statutory requirements may be relevant to the use of effluent
for irrigation. They should be considered on a case-by-case basis and may
include, but not be limited to the following.
Sewerage schemes managed by local government

Council’s responsibilities for water supply and drainage are set out in the Local
Government Act 1993 and regulations.
Local councils operating sewerage schemes must, in accordance with Section
60 of the Local Government Act 1993, obtain the approval of the Minister for
Energy and Utilities for sewage effluent from their areas to be discharged,
treated or supplied to any person. Prior to a Section 60 approval being given,
the Minister for Energy and Utilities must consider the proposal in accordance
with the EP&A Act.
Activities within national parks

The Parks Service Division of DEC is responsible for the management of areas
reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and for
the protection and care of fauna, native plants and Aboriginal places.
Effluent irrigation proposals in such areas are likely to require consent by the
Director-General of the Department of Environment and Conservation. This
approval would trigger the environmental assessment provisions of Part 5 of
the EP&A Act.
A permit is also required for activities likely to damage or destroy Aboriginal
relics or places.
Threatened species
The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 integrates the conservation of
threatened species into the development control processes under the EP&A
Act. The Act sets out factors to be considered in deciding whether there is
likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological
communities and if a Species Impact Statement is required. Where there is
likely to be a significant effect, the consent authority must seek concurrence of
the Director-General of DEC. Further information may be obtained from the
local Parks Service Division offices of the Department.
Legislation that provides for the protection of all threatened fish and marine
plants came into affect on 1 July 1998. Threatened species provisions were
included as Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. This legislation
provides for the protection, conservation and recovery of threatened species,
and makes provision for the management of threats. Further information may
be obtained from the local office of the NSW Department of Primary
Industries.
Protection of drinking water supplies

The Local Government Act 1993 makes it an offence if a person wilfully or
negligently does any act which damages or pollutes a public water supply (or
is likely to do so).
In areas controlled by water corporations or water authorities special or
controlled areas might be defined. These areas have specific provisions
applying to them. Proponents should contact local water supply authorities to
ascertain whether similar provisions apply in their areas.
The Sydney Catchment Authority has been formed under the Sydney
Catchment Management Act 1998. The key role of the Authority is to supply
water to Sydney Water Corporation and to manage and protect Sydney’s
drinking water catchments. The Authority will have ownership, operation
and maintenance of catchment bulk water storage facilities. The Authority is
to ensure that the water it supplies meets appropriate water quality
standards; the environment is protected; and risks to public health are
minimised.
State Environment Planning Policy 58 (SEPP 58) came into force on 1
February 1999. SEPP 58 is an interim measure to improve planning within the
Sydney drinking water catchment areas. Proponents are required to
demonstrate how their development will have a neutral or beneficial effect on
water quality. This SEPP gave the former Planning NSW concurrence and
notification roles in planning decisions affecting water quality within the
Sydney water supply catchment, and this role was taken over by the Sydney
Catchment Authority from 1 September 1999. The SEPP is to be replaced by a
more detailed REP addressing decisions on future development.
Animals to abattoirs
Federal regulations (Export Meat Orders 135 and 141) require the owner of
cattle grazed on effluent areas to seek approval from the abattoir veterinarian
before submitting the animals to any abattoir holding an export licence. The
owner would be expected to demonstrate that the risks of the animals
carrying pathogens (or chemical residues) originating from the effluent were
being adequately managed. Advice should be sought from the Animal

Quarantine and Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture Forestry and
Food, Canberra, where necessary.
Pure food legislation

The NSW Food Act 1989 and Regulation deals with maximum residue
standards in meat set in the Food Standards Code (Adoption) Regulation
1989.
Australian and New Zealand Joint Food Standards Code

This code was gazetted on 21 December 2000.
• Standard 1.4.1: Contaminants and Natural Toxicants; and
• Standard 1.4.2: Maximum Residue Levels.
7. References and Further Reading
7.1 References
ANZECC 1992, Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters,
National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian & New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council, Australia.
ANZECC 2000, Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and
Reporting. National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian & New
Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Australia.
ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for
Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Australian & New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New
Zealand, Australia.
APHA 1998, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
American Public Health Association, 19th edition, Washington, DC.
ARMCANZ and ANZECC 1995, National Water Quality Management Strategy:
Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia, Australia.
ARMCANZ, ANZECC and NHMRC 2000, National Water Quality Management
Strategy: Guidelines for Sewerage Systems – Use of Reclaimed Water. Agriculture
and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand,
Australian & New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and
National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia.
DEC 2004, Approved Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Water Pollutants in
NSW. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney.
Department of Local Government 1998, On-site Sewage Management for Single
Households. Environment and Health Protection Guidelines. Department of
Local Government, NSW.
DLWC 1997, The NSW State Groundwater Policy – Framework document,
Department of Land and Water Conservation, Parramatta.
DLWC 1998, The NSW State Groundwater Quality Protection Policy. Department of
Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.
DLWC 2000, www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/soil/salis.htm
DNR 1997, Salinity Management Handbook. Department of Natural Resources,
Brisbane.
Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W. O. 1977, Guidelines for predicting crop water
requirements. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
DUAP 1995, Is an EIS Required? NSW Department of Urban Affairs and
Planning, Sydney.

DUAP 1996, Irrigation of Sewage Effluent, EIS Guideline. . NSW Department of
Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
EPA 1996, The Perils of Environmental Model Building or The EPA Effluent Reuse
Irrigation Model (ERIM), Paper presented by Ian Shannon at Water Tech
Conference (Australian Water & Wastewater Association), Sydney.
EPA 1997, Environmental Guidelines: Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products. .
NSW Environment Protection Authority, Sydney.
EPA 1999a, Environmental Guidelines: Assessment, Classification and Management
of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. NSW Environment Protection Authority,
Sydney.
EPA 1999b, Load Calculation Protocol – for use by holders of NSW Environment
Protection Licences when calculating assessable loads. NSW Environment
Protection Authority, Sydney.
EPA unpublished, Draft Environmental guidelines for Industry – The Utilisation of
Treated Effluent by Irrigation. February 1995. NSW Environment Protection
Authority, Sydney.
Hardie, A. and Hird, C. 1998, Landform and soil requirements for biosolids and
effluent reuse. NSW Agriculture Advisory Bulletin No. 14, Agdex 514. NSW
Agriculture, Orange, NSW.
Hart, B. T. 1974, A compilation of Australian water quality criteria. AWRC
Technical paper No. 7 Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Jensen, M. E. (ed.) 1981, Design & Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems,
American Society of Agriculture Engineers, Michigan.
Kruger, I., Taylor, G. and Ferrier, M. (eds) 1995, Australian Pig Housing Series-
Effluent at Work. NSW Agriculture, Tamworth.
Marcar, N. E., Crawford, D. F., Leppert, P. M., Jovanovic, T., Floyd, R. and
Farrow, R. 1995, Trees for saltland: A Guide to selecting native species for Australia.
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Myers, B. J., Bond, W. J., Benyon, R. G., Falkiner, R. A., Polglase, P. J., Smith,
C. J., Snow, V. O. and Theiveyanathan, S. 1999, Sustainable Effluent-Irrigated
Plantations: An Australian Guideline. CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products,
Canberra, Australia. 293pp plus CD ROM.
NEPC 1999, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination)
Measure 1999. National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation,
Adelaide.
NSW Department of Primary Industries 2004, Land and Soil Requirements for
Biosolids and Effluent Reuse, Agnote DPI-493, NSW Department of Primary
Industries, Orange, NSW (revises Hardie and Hird 1998).
NSW Agriculture 1997, The New South Wales Feedlot Manual. Inter-
Departmental Committee on Intensive Animal Industries (Feedlot Section),
NSW Agriculture, Orange, NSW.
7. References and further reading 93

NSW Agriculture and Fisheries 1989, BCRI soil testing methods and
interpretation. Abbott, T. S. (ed.) Biological and Chemical research Institute,
NSW Agriculture and Fisheries, Rydalmere, NSW, 82 pp.
NSW Agriculture 2000, Salinity Notes, How to Texture Soils and Test for Salinity,
prepared by Simon Gibbs, Salt Action, Forbes, Salinity Note No. 8, NSW
Agriculture, Orange, NSW.
NSW Government 1998, The NSW Groundwater Quality Protection Policy.
Prepared by Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.
NSW Public Works 1991, Sewage Treatment Plant Performance. NSW Public
Works, Sydney.
NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee 1993, NSW Guidelines for
Urban and Residential Use of Reclaimed Water. Department of Public Works &
Services, Sydney.
Pilgrim, D. H. (ed.) 1987, Australian Rainfall & Runoff, The Institute of
Engineers, Sydney.
Rayment, G. E. and Higginson, F. R. 1992, Australian Laboratory Handbook of
Soil and Water Chemical Methods, Inkata Press, Melbourne.
Reid, R. L. (ed.) 1990, The Manual of Australian Agriculture. Australian Institute
of Agricultural Science, Melbourne.
SCARM (Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management)
1997, National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (2nd Edition), CSIRO
Publishing, Victoria. SCARM Report No. 47.
SPCC 1979, Design Guide for the Disposal of Wastewaters by Land Application,
NSW State Pollution Control Commission, Sydney.
SPCC 1986, WP-7 Water Conservation by Reuse, NSW State Pollution Control
Commission, Sydney.
Standards Australia 1994, AS 1319–1994, Safety Signs in the Occupational
Environment, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW.
Standards Australia 1998, AS/NZS 5667.1:1998 : Water quality - Sampling -
Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the
preservation and handling of samples, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW.
Stewart, B. A. & Neilsen, D. R. (eds) 1990, Irrigation of Agricultural Crops, The
American Society of Agronomy Inc, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil
Science Society of America, Wisconsin.
Stone, Y., Ahern, C. R., and Blunden, B. (eds) 1998, Acid Sulfate Soils Manual
1998. Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee, Wollongbar, NSW.
Younos, T. M. (ed.) 1987, Land Application of Wastewater Sludge, Report of the
Task Committee on Land Application of Sludge, the Committee on Water
Pollution Management, the Environmental Engineering Division, the
American Society of Civil Engineers, NY.

7.2 Further reading
Soils, site suitability and planning

Balks, M. R. and McLay, C. D. A. 1996, Mechanisms of Decrease in Soil
Permeability Following Application of Effluent from the Meat Processing
Industry. Proc. Aust. N. Z. Soils Conference, Melbourne.
Biswas, T. K. and Higginson, F. R. 1998, Interpreting Soil and Irrigation Water
Test Results: A guide to land and wastewater quality assessment. New South Wales
Environment Protection Authority, Sydney.
DLWC 1999, Farm Dams Assessment Guide, Department of Land and Water
Conservation, Parramatta, NSW.
DLWC 2000, Soil and Landscape Issues in Environmental Impact Assessment.
Technical Report No. 34, 2nd Edition. NSW Department of Land and Water
Conservation, Sydney.
McDonald, R. C., Isbell, R. F., Spreight, J. G., Walker, J. and Hopkins, M. S.
1990, Australian Soil and Land Survey: Field Handbook, Second Edition. Inkata
Press, Melbourne.
Pererill, K. I., Sparrow, L. A. and Reuter, D. J. (eds) 1999, Soil Analysis: an
Interpretation Manual. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood Victoria.
Plant water and nutrient requirements

Glendenning, J. S. (ed.) 1990, Fertiliser Handbook. Incitech Ltd, Queensland.
Reuter, D. J. and Robinson, J. B. 1986, Plant Analysis: An Interpretation Manual.
Inkata Press, Sydney.
Sewage effluent
Myers, B. J., Bond, W. J., Falkiner, R. A., O’Brien, N. D., Polglase, P. J., Smith,
C. J. and Theiveyanathan, S. 1995, Effluent-Irrigated Plantations: Design and
Management. CSIRO Division of Forestry, Technical Paper No. 2.
NSW Department of Local Government, NSW Environment Protection
Authority, NSW Health and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 1998,
Environmental and Health Protection Guidelines: On-site Sewage Management for
Single Households. NSW Department of Local Government, Sydney.
Other
ARMCANZ and ANZECC 1999
a) Effluent Management Guidelines for Intensive Piggeries.
b) Effluent Management Guidelines for Dairy Processing Plants.
c) Effluent Management Guidelines for Dairy Sheds.
d) Effluent Management Guidelines for Aqueous Wool Scouring and Carbonising.
e) Effluent Management Guidelines for Tanning and Related Industries.
f) Effluent Management Guidelines for Wineries and Distilleries. National Water
Quality Management Strategy. Agriculture and Resource Management
7. References and further reading 95

Council of Australia and New Zealand and Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council, Australia.
Cattle and Beef Cooperative Research Centre for Meat Quality 1997,
Production and Environmental Monitoring Workshop – Proceedings, 9 – 11
December 1997, UNE, Armidale, NSW.
Langdon, J. S. 1988, Investigation of Fish Kills. History and Causes in Fish
Diseases. Post Graduate Foundation in Veterinary Science, University of
Sydney Proceedings 106, pp167–194.
Lee, J., Masters, D. G., White, C. L., Grace, N. D. and Judson, G. J. 1999,
Current issues in trace element nutrition of grazing livestock in Australia and
New Zealand. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 50:8, 1341–1364.
Meat Research Corporation 1995, Effluent Irrigation Manual for Meat Processing
Plants. MRC (MRC is now Meat and Livestock Australia).
National Research Council 1980, Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals.
National Academy of Sciences. Washington.
Ryan, P. N. and Payne, R. W. 1989, Environmental Management Guidelines for
Animal Based Industries. Miscellaneous publication No. 23/89, Department of
Agriculture, Western Australia.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QLD DPI), Queensland
Government, and Queensland Pork Producers Incorporated 2000,
Environmental Code of Practice for Queensland Piggeries, QLD DPI, Brisbane,
Queensland.

Glossary
Adsorption: Increased concentration of molecules or ions on a surface,
including exchangeable cations and anions on soil particles.
Aeration: A process for continuously creating new air/liquid interfaces to
promote the transfer of oxygen across the interface. This may be achieved by:
(a) spraying the liquid in the air, e.g. spray irrigation of sewage
(b) bubbling air through the liquid, e.g. diffused air aeration in the activated
sludge process
(c) agitating the liquid, eg. mechanical aeration in the activated sludge process
(d) allowing the liquid to flow in thin films over a weir, or
(e) other air entrainment processes such as dissolved air or two phase flows.
Algae: Simple chlorophyll bearing plants varying in form and size, most of
which are aquatic.
Aquifer: Groundwater-bearing formations that are sufficiently permeable to
transmit and yield water in useable quantities.
Available water capacity: The amount of water held in the entire soil profile
between field capacity and permanent wilting point with corrections for
salinity, fragments and root depths. AWC% = FC(%,v/v) – PWP (%,v/v).
Also, loosely defined as the amount of water that a soil can store for plant
growth.
BOD5 – Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): The decrease in oxygen content
in mg/L of a sample of water in the dark at a certain temperature over a
certain period of time, which is caused by the bacterial breakdown of organic
matter. Usually the decomposition has proceeded so far after 20 days that no
further change occurs. The oxygen demand is measured after 5 days (BOD5),
at which time 70% of the final value has usually been reached.
Carbamate: A salt or ester of carbamic acid.
Cation exchange capacity: The capacity of the soil to hold and exchange
cations. It is usually expressed as centimoles of positive charge per kilo of soil
(cmol(+)/kg).
Cation: A positively charged ion.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD): The oxygen equivalent of the organic
matter in wastewater that can be oxidised by using a strong chemical
oxidising agent in an acidic medium.
Chlorinated organic compounds: Hydrocarbons in which some or all of the
hydrogen atoms are replaced by chlorine.
cmol: centimoles (ie. 10-2 moles).
Colloidal solids: A solid particle, generally less than 1 micrometre (µm) in size
(0.001 µm to 1 µm in any dimension) that does not settle out of solution.
Glossary 97
Controlled public access: The limitation of public access to sites so as to
minimise the likelihood of direct physical contact with effluent.
Crop Factor (Kc): The proportion of potential evapotranspiration (PET)
actually transpired by the crop (Etcrop). (Etcrop = Kc x PET)
Deficit (irrigation) scheduling: Scheduling irrigation used to ensure that a
soil moisture deficit remains after each irrigation event (see also irrigation
scheduling).
Denitrification: The biological process by which nitrate is converted to
nitrogen and other gaseous end products.
Designated development: A development designated under any of the
categories listed in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation (or if designated by virtue of an environmental planning
instrument). Examples of designated developments include sewerage
systems, livestock intensive industries, livestock processing industries,
depending on scale and location.
Disinfection: Destruction of disease-causing organisms.
Effluent irrigation system: Irrigation system that uses effluent. Irrigation of
effluent is not synonymous with disposal.
Effluent: As defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations
Amendment Regulation 1999, effluent means:
(a) wastewater from sewage collection or treatment plants; or
(b) wastewater from collection or treatment systems that are ancillary to
processing industries involving livestock, agriculture, wood, paper or food,
being wastewater that is conveyed from the place of generation by means of
a pipe, canal or other conventional method used in irrigation (but not by
means of tanker or truck); or
(c) wastewater from collection or treatment systems that are ancillary to
intensive livestock, aquaculture or agricultural industries, being wastewater
that is released by means of a pipe, canal or other conventional method used
in irrigation as part of day-to-day farming operations.
Electrical conductivity (EC): A measure of the conduction of electricity
through water or a water extract (1 part soil to 5 parts water) of soil. This can
be used to determine the soluble salts content. To obtain the real soil electrical
conductivity (Effective electrical conductivity) the EC of a soil water extract is
converted by a factor which reflects the texture of the soil.
Eutrophication: Enrichment of waters with nutrients, primarily phosphorus,
causing abundant aquatic plant growth.
Evapotranspiration: The combined loss of material from a given area during a
specified period of time by evaporation from the soil or water surface and
transpiration from plants.

Exchangeable cations: Positive ions such as calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, hydrogen, aluminium and manganese, which interchange between
soil solutions and clay or organic complexes in soil.
Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP): The relative proportion of sodium
ions to other exchangeable cations in soil expressed as a percentage. ESP is the
method used to determine the sodicity of a soil (i.e. ESP >5 is considered to be
a sodic soil).
Field capacity: The amount of water held in soil when it has been allowed to
drain.
Flood irrigation: An irrigation method that applies water or wastewater to a
depth of about 0.3 metres, by means of distributors, on a land area
surrounded by low earth embankments. This procedure generally allows the
water or wastewater to percolate through the soil to the under drains, whence
it is discharged into a main ditch or drain.
Freeboard: Spare capacity to accommodate any unexpected increase in
containment requirements.
Furrow irrigation: An irrigation method that applies water or wastewater by
furrows or small ditches that lead from the supply ditch.
Groundwater: Waters occurring below the land surface.
Groundwater recharge areas: Areas in the landscape where rainfall and
surface water infiltrates to the zone of saturation under natural conditions.
Group A wastes: Any of the types of waste specified in the POEO
Amendment Regulation 1999, Schedule 1, Appendix, Part 5.
Group B wastes: Any of the types of waste specified in the POEO
Group C wastes: Any of the types of waste specified in the POEO
Half-life: Time required to reduce by 50% the concentration of a material in a
medium (e.g. soil and water) or organism (e.g. fish tissue) by transport,
degradation, transformation or depuration.
Hazardous wastes: Any of the types of waste specified in the POEO Act,
Schedule 1, Appendix, Part 3, or any waste that is otherwise assessed and
classified as hazardous waste in accordance with the procedures set out in the
and Non-Liquid Wastes (EPA 1999a).
Helminth: Intestinal worm.
Holocene: Recent in geological time.
Indicator faecal coliforms: The presence of these organisms indicates that
pathogenic organisms due to sewage presence may also be present.
Infiltration capacity: The capacity of the soil to take in water at its surface.
Glossary 99
Infiltration rate: The rate at which water can enter the soil surface. It affects
the rate at which a soil may recharge with water and because it affects the
likelihood of surface runoff and hence erosion during heavy rain or irrigation.
Irrigation: The artificial supply of water or wastewater to plants and soils to
replenish moisture lost by evapotranspiration and to grow plants. Irrigation is
not synonymous with disposal.
Irrigation corporation: A company, co-operative or corporation that manages
an irrigation scheme area and is listed on Schedules 1 or 2 of the Irrigation
Corporations Act, 1994. Irrigation corporations construct, maintain, manage
and operate drainage networks and water supply systems and services to
users in the irrigation scheme area. To carry out the business of supplying
water, the irrigation corporations must hold an irrigation corporation licence
(granted by the Governor) and operate in accordance with licence conditions.
Irrigation scheduling: The monitoring of soil moisture deficits either by
direct measurement (e.g. neutron probe) or indirectly by soil moisture
budgeting to determine the frequency and quantity of irrigation water
required. Normally used to ensure that only enough water is applied to meet
plant water requirements.
Leaching fraction: Irrigation water applied in excess of the soil water holding
capacity in order to leach salts to below the plant root zone. The fraction is
usually smaller in higher rainfall areas and larger for higher strength
effluents.
Leaching: The downward movement of a material in solution through soil.
Metasediments: Partly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks.
Micronutrients: Chemical elements such as boron, copper, zinc, iron,
manganese, molybdenum and chlorine that are necessary in only extremely
small amounts for plant growth.
Mole: The molecular weight of a substance expressed in grams.
Nitrification: Transformation of inorganic ammonium (NH4+) into nitrate
(NO3-). In treatment processes, conversion of organic nitrogen to ammoniacal
nitrogen is preceding or occurring simultaneously with nitrification.
Transformation of organic nitrogen in soil is referred to as mineralisation.
Ordovician: The second of the periods comprised in the Paleozoic era, in the
geological classification now generally used. Also, the system of strata
deposited during that period. In older literature, it was called Lower Silurian.
Orthophosphate (PO43-): A water-soluble form of phosphate found in soil
solution, and some effluents, that is taken up by plant roots.
Pan A evaporation: Evaporation is the change of water from its liquid (or
solid) phase to its vapour phase. Supply of energy (solar radiation and
transport of vapour away from the surface (i.e. winds) are two main factors
influencing evaporation for the earth's surface. A standard evaporation pan
called a Class A pan is used a basis to estimate evapotranspiration or
evaporation from open water bodies. See also evapotranspiration.

Parent material: The horizon of weathered rock or partly weathered soil
material from which the soil is formed.
Pathogen: An organism capable of eliciting disease symptoms in another
organism.
Percentile: Values that divide the data into one hundred equal parts are called
percentiles. 50th percentile corresponds to the median, 25th and 75th percentiles
correspond to the first and third quartiles respectively.
Permanent wilting point: The point at which water in the soil is held at
pressures sufficiently high that plants can no longer extract water.
Pesticide: A substance or mixture of substances used to kill unwanted species
of plants or animals.
pH: Value taken to represent acidity or alkalinity of an aqueous solution;
expressed as the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion activity in
moles per litre at a given temperature.
Phenols: A group of aromatic hydroxyl compounds with the base structure
containing phenol (C6H5OH).
Phenoxyacid (herbicides): Group I herbicides that act by disrupting plant
growth (i.e. have multiple sites of action) e.g. 2,4-D, MCPA. These chemicals
act as plant growth regulators in low concentrations.
Phosphorus sorption: The process by which phosphorus binds with hydrous
oxides of iron and aluminium in the soil, thereby becoming unavailable for
plant uptake.
Phosphorus sorption capacity: The ability of a soil material to sorb
phosphorus compounds onto soil particles thereby rendering the phosphorus
unavailable to plants and immobilising it within the soil itself. Soil has a finite
capacity to sorb phosphorus. When the soils phosphorus sorption capacity is
reached phosphorus ions will move with soil water down the profile. This
process starts to partially occur, well before the full sorption capacity is
reached.
Podzolic: Commonly acidic and sandy soils, with a uniform coarse texture
profile, but with strongly colour-differentiated horizons.
Ponding: In the context of effluent treatment, ponding is retention of effluent
in a pond for a period of time, typically exceeding 10 days.
Potable water: Water of drinking quality.
Reclaimed water: Wastewater that has been recovered for further use after
appropriate treatment.
Relative crop yield: Crop yield expressed as a fraction of maximum
(unstressed) yield where unstressed yield = 1.
Root zone: That part of the soil that is invaded by roots of plants.
Salinisation: The accumulation of water-soluble salts in soil to a level harmful
to plant growth.
Glossary 101
Saturated hydraulic conductivity: The flow of water through soil per unit of
energy gradient. It is an important measure of the drainage capacity of the
soil.
Secondary treatment: A combination of processes used to remove
biodegradable organics and suspended solids in wastewater. It removes 85%
of BOD and suspended solids, generally by biological and chemical treatment
processes. Secondary effluent generally has BOD < 30 mg/L, TSS < 30 mg/L
but may rise to > 100 due to algal solids in lagoon or pond systems.
Siliceous: Of or pertaining to silica; containing silica, or partaking of its
nature. Containing abundant quartz.
Sodic soil: A soil containing sufficient exchangeable sodium to adversely
affect soil stability, plant growth and land use. Such a soil would typically
contain a horizon in which the amount of exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) would be five or more. Strongly sodic soils are those with an ESP of 15
or more. Sodic soils generally have severe surface crusting, low infiltration
and hydraulic conductivity, hard and dense subsoil, and are highly
susceptible to gully and tunnel erosion.
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR): The measurement of sodium ions in soil or
water relative to calcium and magnesium ions.
Soil fertility: The capacity of the soil to provide adequate supplies of
nutrients in proper balance for the growth of specified plants, when growth
factors such as light, moisture and temperature are favourable.
Soloth: One of the great soil groups with recognised profile development. It is
a mildly leached soil often with a high sodium content.
Sorption strength: The sorption strength of a soil is a measure of how
strongly P is sorbed to the soil. It depends on the mineralogy and surface
characteristics of the soil.
Spray irrigation: A method of applying water or effluent.
Stormwater runoff: Runoff resulting from rainfall.
Surface irrigation system: An irrigation system using bays, borders or
furrows. This typically excludes spray, drip and sub-surface irrigation
methods.
Surfactant: A substance that alters the surface-modifying properties of
another substance, particularly water. Surfactants are used in detergents to
reduce the surface tension of water so that the water is able to penetrate
fabrics.
Suspended solids (non-filtrable residue): The solids in suspension in
wastewater that are removable by laboratory filtering, usually by a filter of
nominal pore size of about 1.2 micrometers.
Tailwater: Wastewater runoff leaving the down-slope end of an effluent
irrigation area.

Terminal pond: A pond storing contaminated runoff from an effluent
irrigation area, collected by catch drains.
Tertiary treatment: Includes treatment processes beyond secondary or
biological processes that further improve effluent quality. Tertiary treatment
processes include detention in lagoons, conventional filtration via sand, dual
media or membrane filters (which may include coagulant dosing) and land
based or wetland processes.
Thermotolerant coliforms: A subset of coliforms found in the intestinal tract
of humans and other warm blooded animals which can ferment lactose at 44°
to 44.5° to produce acid and gas. They are used as indicators of faecal
pollution. They are also known as faecal coliforms and consist chiefly of E.
coli.
Time step: Time interval between one measurement, iteration or calculation
and the succeeding measurement. In soil water budgeting, this is usually
days, weeks or months.
Total coliforms: Coliform organisms used as indicators of faecal
contamination of water. They are gram negative non-sporing rod-shaped
bacteria capable of aerobic and facultatively anaerobic growth in the presence
of bile salts and ferment lactose producing acid and gas within 48 hours at
35°-37°.
Total dissolved solids (TDS): Combined concentration of dissolved mineral
salts in effluent.
Total nitrogen: Combined concentration of organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite
and nitrate.
Total organic carbon (TOC): The total organic carbon content of wastewater.
Trickle (drip) irrigation: A method of irrigation where pressurised water or
wastewaters are discharged through micro-emitters. Trickle (drip) irrigation
differs from other types of irrigation in that the aim is not to allow the soil
profile to dry out appreciably. Instead the aim is to replace the water removed
by the plant during the previous 24 hours and to place that water in a limited
part of the soil profile. Application rates are small, because the water is
applied daily and water loss through evaporation is small. The method is
suitable for row-crops and permanent horticultural plantings.
Uncontrolled public access: Public access to sites so that direct physical
contact with effluent is possible.
Volatilise: To become volatile or pass off as vapour.
Watertable: The surface of the saturated zone in an unconfined aquifer.
Waterlogging: The accumulation of excessive moisture in the soil within the
zone or depth desirable for favourable root development of plants. Saturation
of soil with water and the replacement of most or all of the soil air with water.
Glossary 103
Water quality objective: Numerical concentration limits or other
requirements established to support and protect ambient water quality for
designated environmental values (or water uses) at a specified site, (eg.
establishing instream salinity levels needed to protect water quality used for
the irrigation of crops). Under the National Water Quality Management
Strategy they are locally established benchmarks for water quality derived
from prevailing Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Waters.
Wet weather storage (storage): A facility for storing effluent generated when
the use of effluent for irrigation is not possible, such as when it is raining, or
when evaporation is very low.

Appendix 1: Guidelines for the Use of Reclaimed Water from Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants
Appendix 1
Table A1: Guidelines for treatment, disinfection and irrigation controls for the spray application of municipal sewage effluent
Type of reuse Level of treatment Effluent quality1 Effluent monitoring2 Controls
Urban (non-potable)
7
Municipal with uncontrolled public Tertiary pH 6.5–8.5 pH weekly Application rates limited to protect
≤2 NTU
9
access BOD weekly groundwater quality.
and Turbidity continuous
Irrigation open spaces, parks, Salinity should be considered for
sportsgrounds, dust suppression, 10 irrigation.
5 1 mg/L Cl2 residual or equivalent level of With disinfection system, e.g. Cl2
construction sites Pathogen reduction pathogen reduction Disinfection systems daily
6
3 4 3
Thermotolerant coliforms <10 cfu/100mL Thermotolerant coliforms weekly
Municipal with controlled public access Secondary pH monthly Irrigation during times of no public
SS monthly access.
Irrigation open spaces, parks, and Application rates limited to protect
3
sportsgrounds, dust suppression, 5 3 4
Thermotolerant coliforms weekly groundwater quality. Salinity
construction sites, mines Pathogen reduction Thermotolerant coliforms <1,000 cfu/100 mL Disinfection systems daily
6
should be considered for irrigation.
Withholding period nominally 4
hours or until irrigated area is dry.
Agricultural
7
Food production Tertiary pH 6.5–8.5 pH weekly Application rates limited to protect
≤2 NTU
9
Turbidity continuous groundwater quality. Salinity
Raw human food crops in direct and should be considered.
contact with effluent e.g. via sprays, 5 10 6
irrigation of salad vegetables Pathogen reduction 1 mg/L Cl2 residual or equivalent level of Disinfection systems daily A minimum of 25 days ponding or
disinfection equivalent treatment (e.g. sand
In NSW, NSW Health does not support filtration) for helminth control.
3 4
the use of reclaimed water for spray Thermotolerant coliforms <10 cfu/100 mL 3
6 Thermotolerant coliforms weekly
irrigation of salad vegetables where <1 intestinal nematode egg or larva/L
the effluent is in contact with the edible
part of the plant.
105
106
Table A1: Guidelines for treatment, disinfection and irrigation controls for the spray application of municipal sewage effluent (cont)
Type of reuse Level of treatment Effluent quality1 Effluent monitoring2 Controls

7
Food production Secondary pH 6.5–8.5 pH weekly Application rates limited to protect
BOD weekly groundwater quality. Salinity
Raw human food crops not in direct and SS weekly should be considered.
contact with effluent (edible product Dropped crops not to be harvested
separated from contact with effluent11, from the ground.
e.g. use of trickle irrigation) or crops Thermotolerant coliforms3 weekly
sold to consumers cooked or Pathogen reduction5 Thermotolerant coliforms3 <1,000 cfu/100 mL4` Crops must be cooked (>70°C for
processed. 2 minutes), commercially
processed or peeled before
consumption.

SS weekly groundwater quality.
Pasture and fodder (for grazing and
animals except pigs and dairy animals, Withholding period of nominally 4
i.e. cattle, sheep and goats) Pathogen reduction5 Thermotolerant coliforms3 <1,000 cfu/100 mL4 Thermotolerant coliforms3 weekly hours for irrigated pasture. Drying
Disinfection systems daily6 or ensiling of fodder.
Helminth controls8.
Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

Pasture and fodder for dairy animals and Withholding period of 5 days for
(with withholding period). grazing animals. Drying or ensiling
Pathogen reduction5 Thermotolerant coliforms3 <1,000 cfu/100 mL4 Thermotolerant coliforms3 weekly of fodder. Helminth controls8.
Disinfection systems daily6

Pasture and fodder for dairy animals and
(without withholding period). Drinking No withholding period.
water (all stock except pigs). Pathogen reduction5 Thermotolerant coliforms3 <100 cfu/100 mL4 Thermotolerant coliforms3 weekly Helminth controls8.
Washdown water for dairies Disinfection systems daily6
Non-food crops Secondary pH 6.5–8.57 pH weekly Application rates limited to protect

BOD weekly groundwater quality.
Silviculture, turf and cotton, etc. and SS weekly Restricted public access.
Thermotolerant coliforms3 <10,000 cfu/100 Thermotolerant coliforms3 weekly Withholding period nominally 4
Pathogen reduction5 mL4 hours or until irrigated area is dry.
Source: These requirements are based on National Water Quality Management Strategy: Guidelines for Sewage Systems — Use of Reclaimed Water (ARMCANZ,
ANZECC and NHMRC 2000).
Notes: DEC/local council will adopt the criteria set in any updated national guidelines except where NSW Health provides different requirements particular to NSW or local
conditions.
Appendix 1
Consistent with the national guidelines, it should be noted that in some cases, the Department of Environment and Conservation/local council or NSW Health may
adopt more stringent requirements than those outlined in the national document, eg. It is possible that NSW Health may apply the national guideline values as
maximum levels rather than median levels.
Intensive animal industries should check for specific animal health protection measures.
SS = suspended solids
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
CFU = colony-forming units
1. Effluent quality refers to its quality following treatment appropriate for a particular application and prior to mixing with receiving waters. The guideline levels apply to
the treated effluent feeding into the reticulation system, after the point of treatment and disinfection. The effluent should not degrade in quality while it is being
stored or while travelling through a reticulation system. Chlorine may need to be added as a primary or secondary disinfectant to allow for a residual disinfection.
2. Monitoring demonstrates effluent water quality at the point of supply rather than at the treatment plant. In most cases this will be the point of entry to the
reticulation system or other suitable representative sampling location.
3. Thermotolerant coliforms (see Glossary).
4. Median value. Refer to statistical treatment of data in ARMCANZ, ANZECC & NHMRC (2000) or future updates
5. Pathogen reduction beyond secondary treatment may be accomplished by disinfection (eg. chlorine) or by detention (eg. ponds or lagoons). Systems using
detention only do not provide reduction of thermotolerant coliform counts to <10 per 100 mL and are unsuitable as the sole means of pathogen reduction for high
contact uses.
6. Disinfection systems refer to chlorination, ultraviolet irradiation or other disinfection systems. Monitoring requirements may include checking chlorine residual or
operational checking of UV equipment. Monitoring frequency for pond and lagoon systems will be site-specific and dependent on factors such as detention time.
7. 90% compliance for samples.
8. Helminths controls include measures such as removal by treatment, veterinary inspection, cattle husbandry and/or a withholding period prior to grazing. For
pasture and fodder applications, other options may be used to control helminth infection in grazing animals if they are acceptable to the NSW Department of
Primary Industries.
9. Limit met prior to disinfection. 24 hour mean value. 5 NTU maximum value not to be exceeded.
10. Total Chlorine Residual after a minimum contact time of 30 minutes.
11. In NSW, NSW Health specifies that for raw food crops separated from contact with effluent by peel, the level of treatment should be the higher category of ‘Raw
food crops in direct contact with effluent.’
107
Appendix 2: Load-based Licensing
At the time of publication of this Guideline some activities are subject to the
EPA’s load-based licensing (LBL) scheme. The following information is from
the Load Calculation Protocol referred to in the Protection of the Environment
Operations (General) Regulation 1998 (the Regulation). The full Protocol sets
out those activities that are subject to LBL and the methods that must be used
to calculate assessable pollutant loads. A revised Load Calculation Protocol
may be issued from time to time and should be referred to. These revisions
are notified in the Government Gazette. Copies of the full and most recent
LBL Protocol, and relevant legislation are available from DEC’s web site at
www.environment.nsw.gov.au, or contact the Department.
Effluent irrigation schemes subject to LBL can obtain a discount on the
pollutant load fee where effluent is reused in a sustainable manner. In the
case of reuse of effluent, weighted loads are calculated by multiplying the
actual loads of each pollutant by ‘reuse discount factors’. There are different
performance criteria for achieving discounts for each pollutant. The reuse
discount factor for each pollutant is the sum of a ‘pollutant management
factor’ (0, 0.25 or 0.5) and a ‘water management factor’ (0, 0.25 or 0.5). Better
performance leads to a lower factor and thus a higher fee discount; i.e. the
best possible score is 0 + 0 = 0 (100% discount), and the least beneficial is 0.5 +
0.5 = 1 (nil discount).
If a range of discount factors applies to different portions of the effluent (e.g.
different disposal or reuse methods for parts of the total load), the load is
divided into portions, the appropriate discount factors are applied to each
portion, and then the values are summed to calculate total weighted loads of
each pollutant.
Refer to the full and most recent LBL Protocol available from DEC or the
Department’s website at www.environment.nsw.gov.au.

Appendix 3: Soil Texture Factors for Soil Salinity Measurement
The following table can be used to convert EC 1:5 soil-water solution to
saturated extract (ECe) (see Section 2.3, Soil Salinity).
Table A3: Soil texture factors for converting EC 1:5 soil-water solution
measurement to saturated extract
Soil Texture Multiply EC 1:5 by the factor below to get ECe

Sandy loam 11
Sandy clay loam 10
Clay loam 9
Light medium clay 8
Medium clay 7
Heavy clay 6
Source: Based on NSW Agriculture (2000).
Appendix 3 109
Appendix 4: The Effluent Reuse Irrigation Model (ERIM)
The design of a sustainable agronomic system for the use of water, nutrients
and organic matter in effluent is central to these guidelines. This appendix
explains the basis upon which DEC’s Effluent Reuse Irrigation Model was
constructed. The following is an extract from a paper presented at a
WaterTech Conference (EPA 1996).
Model description
The Effluent Reuse Irrigation Model (ERIM) is based on historical rainfall and
evaporation data supplied by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The
computer implementation of the model is interactive and allows the user to
supply local data to generate design criteria for the storage and land
requirements of a sustainable irrigation system through a range of graphical
displays.
ERIM is designed to be general in that it functions in the same way regardless
of location, although site-specific parameters must be provided.
Initially, the evaporation at the selected site is adjusted by a set of crop factors
to yield evapotranspiration, which is a measure of water usage by the crop.
The crop factors depend on the site, crop grown, agricultural practice,
agronomic considerations and month of year.
The deficit of rainfall over evapotranspiration (referred to as irrigation
demand) is used to define the potential irrigation pattern, which is established
for as many years as historical data is available. A cumulative distribution of
yearly irrigation demands is used to pick a lower and upper limit on the
depth of irrigation between which a solution will be determined. By default,
the lower limit is half the lowest recorded irrigation demand and the default
upper limit is the 10% point on the cumulative distribution, but both may be
adjusted if they are unsuitable. It is extremely unlikely that a feasible solution
will exist outside these two nominated limits.
The historical rainfall and evaporation data is used to calculate the wet
weather storage that would have been used for each target irrigation depth
from the whole range identified above. The guidelines associate a level of
acceptable environmental risk of wet weather storage overflow with defined
effluent strength (low, medium or high). The storage sizes necessary to reflect
the various environmental risks are determined by counting down the
appropriate number of yearly peaks.
The computer implementation of the model will then display these given
storage sizes for the range of irrigation depths previously determined. A
subsequent graphic display shows the same relationship but plots storage size
in megalitres (or equivalent days of dry weather flow) against irrigation land
area required (in hectares).

Model assumptions
• The future weather will behave like past weather, as supplied in the
historical data.
• The input to the scheme is deterministic. (The volume of effluent from the
treatment facility cannot be adjusted day-to-day in response to scheme
operations. For example the effluent supply to the scheme cannot be
suspended during difficult periods where storage approaches maximum
volumes.)
• The rainfall and evaporation at the site are similar to the rainfall and
evaporation at the chosen Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM)
station(s).
• There will be sufficient water to enable the crop to survive during drought
so that the crop will be able to use water when required.
• Crop factors can be determined to reflect water usage by the scheme.
Decisions
The major decisions and alternatives considered in constructing this model
and its computer implementation are discussed in this section.
Modelling method
Two alternatives were considered for the basis of the irrigation demand
calculation:
• Direct calculation: Australian rainfall and runoff (ARR) can be used to
estimate the total volume of rain falling on a site during a range of storm
events (Pilgrim 1987).
These figures have often been used to calculate the size of terminal ponds
protecting the downstream ecology of irrigation sites. Additionally the
yearly rain expected may also be estimated from ARR or directly from
rainfall tables. This rainfall estimate could be subtracted from average
evaporation (or evapotranspiration) to yield an irrigation demand. Such
direct calculations could be carried out for a 50 percentile, 75 percentile
and 90 percentile rainfall year to estimate irrigation depths (or land area)
and storage required. The assumed environmental risks would be set to
50%, 25% and 10% of years of wet weather storage overflow.
• Historical simulation: The alternative is to use historical rainfall and
evaporation in a simulation to determine the patterns of rainfall deficit or
irrigation demand for each year. These patterns will determine the yearly
depth of irrigation possible and requirements for wet weather storage.
In most of NSW, although the pattern of evaporation is reasonably
constant from year to year, the yearly rainfall pattern is by no means well
defined. This is exemplified by the long periods of drought and then high
intensity rain leading to floods. Two different years at a high rainfall level
(for example the 90th percentile) will almost certainly have different
Appendix 4 111
rainfall patterns throughout the year and hence different irrigation
demands. This leads to inconsistencies with the direct calculation
approach.
DEC guidelines have adopted a ‘difficult to irrigate’ concept measured by
maximum wet weather storage required during the year. This is reasoned
from a perspective of environmental protection. Such a measure translates
into risk of storage overflow with the possibility of ecological harm. This,
in turn, requires the historical simulation approach used in the DEC model
instead of direct calculation.
Model time step

Generally, the accuracy of a simulation model increases as the time step
decreases. This is correct for coarse time steps, but by no means true for fine
time steps. The computations involved (and hence solution time) increase as
the time step becomes finer. Cumulative numerical errors are of more concern
in finer time step models, especially where they involve subtraction of similar
sized values. Greater attention needs to be paid to the model components
when reducing the simulation interval as will be discussed below.
A time step smaller than a year is clearly required to model the irrigation
demand pattern referred to above. A natural time period would be a
combination of rainfall event and irrigation cycle. This is known as an event
based non-uniform time step. Such a time step could form the basis of an
acceptable model, but it was felt that the non-uniform step size would present
problems making the model general (i.e. not site-specific). The choices that
DEC actively considered were monthly, weekly and daily. The size of data
files required is inversely related to the time step size. The ABM has daily and
monthly rainfall and evaporation data readily available. Weekly data would
require preliminary processing of daily data. The total size of data files for
distribution with the computer implementation was one concern.
A daily time step model must address the issue of soil moisture levels. It is
inappropriate to directly apply the deficit approach in daily modelling. As
irrigation potential is set to the rainfall deficit, a simple daily approach would
have the land continually irrigated so that when rain eventually falls most
will be lost as runoff and/or drainage to groundwater. This is because the soil
is at or near field capacity. To accurately reflect appropriate agricultural
practice in irrigation, the soil water content needs to be modelled and
irrigation scheduled only on those days where soil water has decreased to an
irrigation trigger value. This should decrease the likelihood of moderate rain
being lost. Hence, a daily time step model involves a lot more than just a
scaled up version of a longer time period model. This is an example of the
time step complexity discussed above.
A monthly time step model can overestimate the amount of wet weather
storage required in schemes where a terminal pond below the irrigation area
is not required. This could be the case for a scheme using low strength wastes
not in the vicinity of sensitive waters. The limited monthly model will
implicitly try to store and irrigate all the rainfall runoff during the month.

The design chosen in the DEC model is a compromise between the monthly
and daily time step. It uses a monthly time step for rain and evaporation but,
additionally, the number of rain days in each month is used to better model
rain events. Also included, and discussed below, is the water holding capacity
of the soil and the capacity of terminal ponds.
Percolation
A reuse water scheme should ideally not pollute either surface or
groundwaters. However, with unpredictable rain this will not always be the
case, though the scheme design should minimise such occurrences. This goal,
however, must be modified in the case of saline wastes. From a land
management perspective, undesirable changes will occur if saline water is
irrigated and all the water and nutrients are taken up by plants. The salt will
not be absorbed, and over time will accumulate in the soil. Therefore,
percolation of effluent is advisable so that introduced salts can be leached
from the root zone to promote healthy plant growth. Fortunately, salts are
very soluble, so that with minimal percolation to groundwater the salt build-
up in the root zone can be prevented.
Where the underlying groundwaters are naturally brackish, then the leaching
of salts will have little or no impact. If however, natural groundwaters have a
low salt content, then the impact caused by leaching must not be excessive to
the point where it lowers the beneficial use of the groundwater.
In the DEC model, an amount of irrigation over the monthly demand can be
applied for the purpose of salt percolation. This over-irrigation only occurs
when such percolation is not naturally supplied by rain, and in any case is
strictly limited in the computer implementation. The maximum percolation
value of up to 15 mm/month (EPA 1995) has been a considerable debating
point. Some arguments suggest that the proposed value is inadequate.
Although DEC or local council would, of course, consider any reasoned
proposal for a higher figure, the current DEC opinion is that higher values
would represent wastewater disposal, not reuse, and would increase the risk
of groundwater pollution. It should be noted here that in coastal NSW, with
high rainfall, DEC does not expect that schemes will need any irrigation-
supplied percolation.
Capacity independent solution method

Any reuse scheme design process should answer two related questions:
i) what land area is required; and ii) what volume of wet weather storage is
required? It is possible that in certain cases one of these is of fixed size, but in
general both need to be determined. In fact, there is likely to be a trade-off
between them, and the knowledge of the rate of substitution is necessary for
cost minimisation analysis.
To facilitate this calculation the DEC model determines the storage required
at each grid point in a range of irrigation depths. This gives the (increasing)
relationship between storage required and irrigation depth. Hence the
‘solution’ given by the DEC model is in fact not a solution at all but, rather,
Appendix 4 113
the substitution curve for a given environmental risk. Initially the curve is in
terms of millimetres of irrigation and so is independent of actual effluent
volumes. Doubling the effluent volume will obviously double both the land
and storage required.
For easy interpretation in the computer implementation, the values for
effluent volumes are used to re-scale the capacity independent relationship in
terms of storage volume in ML (or days of supply) versus land area.
Crop factors
The crop factors are the adjustments to evaporation to reflect actual crop
usage of water. For simplicity, the DEC model combines all the influences into
one site-specific set of monthly factors. DEC crop factors also include the ‘pan
factor’ which relates the Pan A evaporation to evaporation from a surface (i.e.
soil or crop surface). The actual crop factors to be used on any particular
scheme should be supplied at the design stage. Therefore there is no crop-
specific or site-specific values fixed by the DEC model. This was implemented
to ensure that the model is useable independent of location.
Rainfall runoff and terminal pond sizing

As discussed above, a monthly time step may be too coarse at some sites,
forcing recycling (by irrigation) of too much rainfall runoff. To this end, the
model now includes buffer storage, which are the actual soil water-holding
capacity and the terminal pond capacity. It is now possible for high strength
effluents to have a buffer storage level even higher than the level stipulated in
the draft version of the model (EPA 1995). On the other hand, if the scheme
and waste strength do not warrant terminal ponds, this part of the buffer
storage can be set to zero.
Evaporation, rainfall and the storage pond

Evaporation and rainfall adjustments to the storage pond were neglected in
the draft model (EPA 1995), and comments suggested that the model had
either:
• overestimated (the wet-weather storage/irrigation depth relationship)
because evaporation from the storage would decrease the amount of water
available for irrigation, or
• underestimated, because additional rain on the storage would add to the
total volume of water to be irrigated.
As a result of the comments, the model was adjusted to reflect both
evaporation and rainfall in the wet weather storage area. While in some cases
these calculations may change the solution found, nevertheless, for most
feasible schemes, the surface area of the wet weather storage would be at
most 10% of the irrigation area, and so any such adjustment would be small.
This change was implemented by including a storage surface area to
irrigation area ratio. For example, consider the case when a suitable solution

has been identified and a storage size selected in ML. The surface area of the
actual storage will be the identified volume divided by the average height
(after scaling for correct units). The model can then be re-run to gauge the
changes in the model solution that result from halving the average height.
This is done by supplying a surface area to irrigation area ratio, double the
previous value.
Discounting rainfall for tree canopy interception

DEC believes that, overall, the effect of tree canopy interception of rainfall is
insignificant. The rain caught by the tree canopy will be responsible for
reduced evaporation by the crop during the time of the tree canopy water
evaporation. Hence, a discounted rainfall must be matched by an almost
equal discounting of evaporation. To be accurate, special crop factors would
need to be included for this water evaporation from the tree canopy.
Adjusting rainfall and evaporation for tree canopy interception was omitted
for three reasons: the overall effect of the adjustment is small; it is very
difficult to accurately model the adjustment; and the adjustment would
further complicate the model. Adjusting only rainfall, and not evaporation,
for tree canopy interception will lead to designs which underestimate storage
and/or land area.
Discounting irrigation for spray misting

Discounting for spray irrigation is proposed in some irrigation models
because it is obvious that some water will be lost in spray irrigation.
However, there appears to be little scientific justification for this position
(Jensen 1981; J. Murtagh, pers. comm. NSW Agriculture, 1995).
On examining the fate of the ‘missing water’ it is possible to see that what is
lost must re-enter the equation elsewhere. For the amount that evaporates
before reaching the ground, there will be a similar reduction in available
evaporation. Compare this with the discussion concerning rainfall
discounting above. The amount of spray that drifts away will either fall on
another part of the irrigation site (therefore, it is not lost) or on the
surrounding buffer strip. By notionally including in the calculated area that
part of the buffer strip on which drift spray falls, the model can successfully
determine the area required. It should be noted that this marginal increase in
land area does not include most of the buffer strip, which would receive very
little drift spray. For this reason, neither the model nor the computer
implementation includes any discounting of irrigation.
Wet weather augmented flows

Even the best sewer systems leak to some extent. Sewage leaks out and water
gets in. Additionally, illegal cross connections from the stormwater system
will provide increased flows after rain. This is unlikely to be the case for
factory generated wastes, where total control of the waste stream is possible.
But at the other extreme, runoff carrying wastes from animal feedlots will
only be of significant volumes following rain. The model was expanded to
Appendix 4 115
accommodate wet weather flows to enable both use for feedlot schemes and
better estimation for STP effluent.
The wet weather flow is modelled as a linear function of rainfall between two
limits. The lower limit is set in terms of millimetres of rain before runoff (or
wet weather flow) is assumed to occur. That is, the value can be set so that
light showers will not produce wet weather flow. The upper limit is set in
terms of flow volume, and for a sewer system would represent the maximum
hydraulic flow of the pipe-work. For animal feedlots, this upper limit would
be the maximum design storm event that the scheme will be required to deal
with. The function relating rainfall to wet weather augmented flow is as
simple as possible while still being compatible with current practice using
runoff coefficients.
Method of characterising schemes

There are two methods of characterising reuse schemes. They are ‘partial
reuse’ and ‘maximum reuse’. The partial reuse method expresses (usually as a
percentage) the ratio of water successfully irrigated to total effluent delivered
to the scheme. The maximum reuse method expresses the average number of
years between storage overflows, i.e. the risk of overflow.
The Department of Environment and Conservation model and guidelines use
the maximum reuse method to characterise schemes, based on the direct link
with the frequency of environmental disturbance, and hence environmental
protection. For example, high strength waste schemes are to have an
associated environmental risk of storage overflow no more than one year in
ten. Such a scheme would have a reuse proportion greater than 90%, because
nine years in ten all effluent is used for irrigation. In fact, as all the effluent
will not overflow during the one year in ten, such schemes will have reuse
coefficients generally greater than 95%.
However, for the range of solutions determined by the DEC model, the reuse
coefficients will not be fixed at a given environmental risk. For high strength
effluent with low environmental risk (one year in ten), the possible range in
the reuse coefficient is small (typically 95% to 99%). With the lower strength
wastes, the correspondence will be weaker. This means that when a scheme is
designed against a 75% reuse target, it has a range of overflow frequencies
probably ranging from one year in two to one year in four.
The proportion reuse characterisation of a scheme (the late E. Corbin, pers.
comm., NSW Agriculture, 1994; J. Murtagh, pers. comm., NSW Agriculture,
1995) can be more intuitive, so the computer model includes the actual reuse
proportion calculation and display in the implementation, though it is not
used as a basis of calculation.
Precautionary discharges
Precautionary discharges can be used to ensure that discharge occurs when
conditions will minimise environmental impacts (rather than uncontrolled
overflows as discussed in Section 4.2.) This approach is only permitted when

licence conditions expressly allow it to occur. Licence conditions will include
an in-stream trigger flow, a time horizon or lower flow limit as well as
volume and effluent quality limits. The conditions will be designed to ensure
that a higher load than would otherwise occur is not discharged.
Even with correctly designed reuse schemes, there will be storage overflows,
most likely after a prolonged period of low evaporation, perhaps where there
has been continual rain in later winter. At the time of overflow, heavy rain
may have long since finished so that the flow in the waterway (where the
overflow will discharge) will have subsided from its peak immediately
following the heavy rain. This means that the in-stream dilution is not as high
as it might be.
The precautionary discharge concept has been added to the model for
situations where there is a high probability of an overflow within a set time. A
discharge may be made to a waterway that is experiencing higher than
normal flows. The actual time horizon, in-stream trigger flow and size of
discharge will depend on the local situation but would probably be in the
range of 60 days, 70 to 80 percentile flow and 10 to 20 days effluent flow
respectively.
The overall effect of such releases will be a single discharge into a strong
flowing waterway with good dilution potential, instead of an extended period
of continual discharge, albeit at a lower volume per unit time, into a river
with lower dilution capacity.
Formal model specification

This description uses the following indexes and convention.
• m - 1 .. 12 indexes months in year
• y - ymin .. ymax indexes years (e.g. 1912 .. 1995)
• g - 1 .. ng indexes grid points of irrigation depths (e.g. 1 .. 20)
• XX[x%] represents the x% point from the ordered
enumeration XX
Let
• CFm be the crop factor for month m,
• Ry,m be the rainfall for year y, month m,
• Ey,m be the evaporation for year y, month m

then
• MIDy,m = (Ey,m × CFm) - Ry,m
is the irrigation demand for year y, month m
• IDy = ∑MIDy,m is the yearly irrigation demand.
Appendix 4 117
From the cumulative distribution of IDy identify
• G0 = ID[0%] ÷ 2 (half the lowest value) and
• GL = ID[10%] (10% point on cumulative distribution)
as lower and upper grid limits for depth of irrigation. These may be adjusted
but usually give good limits.
For all grid points define
S(g) = G0 + (GL - G0) × (g - 1) ÷ (ng - 1)
as supply levels for the range of irrigation depths
Set
• Fy,m to be the fraction of yearly flow in year y, month m. Here
yearly flow is dry weather flow plus average yearly wet
weather flow. Note that SFy,m m=1.12 may exceed 1 for years
with significant wet weather flows
• ADJy,m to be the net adjustment for rain and evaporation over the
storage area
• UDy,m to the unsatisfied irrigation demand due to lack of effluent
water
• PDy,m to precautionary discharges (mostly = 0)
then
ADDg,y,m = S(g) × Fy,m + ADJy,m - [ (IDy,m - UDy,m) + PDy,m]
is the net addition to storage for irrigation rate g in year y and month m;
Qg,y,m = ∑ADDg,j,n {j, n} = {ymin,1} .. {y,m}
is the storage volume for irrigation rate g in year y and month m;
QYg,y = max Qg,y,m defines yearly storage maximums.
Using the cumulative distributions QYg,[x], derived from QYg,y select the
value corresponding to environmental risk r% of overflow using all years.
QS(g)r = QYg,[100 - r%] is the model solution storage level given irrigation
depth g for environmental risk r%. Note for a given environmental risk r QS is
a function of irrigation depth g.

Appendix 5: Government Agency Roles
Table A5: Summary of key agency regulatory and advisory roles

Department of Licensing of schemes on Schedule 1 of POEO Act or where a licence is
Environment and necessary for protection of waters.
Conservation
(incorporating the Noise, waste, air or odour issues/licensing.
EPA)
National Parks matters
Management of all reserves and dedicated areas under the National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1974.
Concurrence on provisions of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
Management of Aboriginal relics and places.
NSW Department of Natural Resource matters:

Infrastructure,
Planning and Advice on: Farm Dam Policy; and clearing of native vegetation.
Natural Resources
Protection of groundwater consistent with State Groundwater Policy: site
suitability; potential impacts; beneficial uses.
Administration of the Water Management Act 2000 including Water diversion

licensing, works approvals and regulatory responsibilities.
Provision of Soil Landscape Mapping series; groundwater vulnerability &

availability maps; broad-scale derivative maps detailing soil and landform
limitations to land-based application of effluent and Acid Sulfate Soils Risk
Maps.
Planning matters:
Planning approvals for land-use and development under Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Content of Environmental Impact Statements.
Land use zoning.
Preparation of planning instruments.
Provision of Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines, e.g. for Irrigation of

Sewage Effluent.
Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee.
Department of Approval of works under Local Government Act 1993 (Section 60) and provide
Energy, Utilities and for sewage being discharged, treated and supplied to any person.
Sustainability
NSW Department of Advice on: agricultural best management practices; site management and
Primary Industries assessment; soil, pasture/crop and irrigation management; animal health; and
constructing and managing effluent storage dams.
Development of industry specific guidelines.
Concurrence on threatened species provisions of the Fisheries Management

Act 1994.
Advice on important fish and fisheries and proximity to sensitive fish habitats.
NSW Health Advice on health protection measures for effluent irrigation schemes.
Advice on the level of effluent treatment to be achieved.
Site-specific advice on public access to irrigation sites and appropriate hazard

signage.
Appendix 5 119
NSW Food Food hygiene and contamination.
Authority
Local councils Planning approvals for land-use and development.
Determination of Environmental Impact Statements.
Regulatory Authority for pollution control for irrigation schemes that are not
regulated by the EPA through a licence, i.e. most schemes on Schedule 1 of
the POEO Act.
Water Authorities Management of special or controlled areas for drinking water supplies.
Developers of reuse schemes.
WorkCover NSW Occupational health and safety.
Sydney Catchment Concurrence and notification roles in planning decisions affecting water quality
Authority within Sydney water supply catchment.

Appendix 6: Department of Environment and Conservation
Offices
Department of Environment and Conservation offices are open 8.30 am to 5.00
pm weekdays, except public holidays. An answering service is generally
available at times when district offices are not attended.
DEC Head Office
59-61 Goulburn Street, Sydney

PO Box A290, Sydney South 1232
Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switch)
Fax: (02) 9995 5999
TTY: (02) 9211 4723
Pollution line: 131 555 (information & publications; local call in NSW)
Email: info@environment.nsw.gov.au
Web: www.environment.nsw.gov.au
Contact details for regional and district DEC offices can be found at
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/about, or by calling Pollution Line on 131 555.
Appendix 6 121

Eff Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eff Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eff Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES

USE OF EFFLUENT BY IRRIGATION

USE OF EFFLUENT BY IRRIGATION

The Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) is pleased to allow

1.1 Purpose and scope

Application of this Guideline

2 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

4 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

1.6 Procedure checklist for establishing a system

6 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

Operation and maintenance

2.1 Land use conflicts

2.2 Selecting the site

8 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

Detailed soil investigations

10 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

Saturated hydraulic conductivity

Available water holding capacity

Cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations

Emerson Aggregate Test (EAT)

Soil phosphorus adsorption

12 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

2.5 Acid sulfate soils

Table 2.1: Landform requirements for effluent irrigation systems

Slope (%) (for

– flood/surface/ <1 1–3 >3

Flooding none or rare Occasional frequent limited irrigation

Landform crests, convex concave drainage lines erosion and seasonal

Surface rock Nil 0–5 >5 interferes with irrigation

Property Nil or Slight Moderate Severe1 Restrictive Feature

Exchangeable sodium < 10 >10 _ structural degradation and

Saturated hydraulic conductivity 20–80 5–206 or <5 excess runoff, waterlogging,

Emerson aggregate test 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 2, 3 1 Poor structure

Phosphorus (P) sorption high9 moderate9 Low unable to immobilise any

14 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

2.7 Surface water

16 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

2.8 Flood potential

3.1 Classification of effluent for environmental management

18 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

Table 3.1: Classification of effluent for environmental management

Total nitrogen <50 50–100 >100

Total phosphorus <10 10–20 >20

BOD5 <40 40–1,500 >1,500

Notes: 1. Average concentrations established from a minimum of 12 representative samples, collected

3. Effluent quality and irrigation considerations 19

3.2 Organic content

20 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

3. Effluent quality and irrigation considerations 21

Table 3.2: Mineralisation of organic nitrogen in wastewater sludge and

% original organic nitrogen mineralised

At end of year Raw wastewater sludge1 Effluent (estimated)

Source: Younos (1987).

22 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

3.6 Chemical contaminants

3. Effluent quality and irrigation considerations 23

24 Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation

Aluminium 5.0 High toxicity in acid soils. Not a

Cadmium 0.01 Higher toxicity in acid soils