Water Management: Christmas Island, Indian Ocean

CHRISTMAS ISLAND, INDIAN OCEAN
WATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Prepared for GHD Pty Ltd

and Christmas Island Administration
by
Tony Falkland
ACTEW Corporation Ltd
and
Rod Usback
Sustainable Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd
October 1999
Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page i
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

by
Tony Falkland
and
Rod Usback
November 1999
Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
List of Annexes v
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
Abbreviations vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Introduction 1
Summary and Conclusions 1
Recommendations 8
Action Plan 12
1. INTRODUCTION 13
1.1 Overview 13
1.2 Background 13
1.3 Structure of the Plan 15
2. LEGISLATION 16
2.1 Requirements of the Brief 16
2.2 Introduction 16
2.3 Present Laws Relevant to Water on Christmas Island 16
2.4 Directions and Requirements 17
3. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS 19
3.2 Broader Directions and Context 19
3.3 Current Administrative Arrangements 19
3.4 Water Supply Authority Options for Christmas Island 20
3.5 Formal Transfer of Water Supply Function – Need for MOU 21
4. GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING 23

4.2 Introduction 23
4.3 Drilling and Testing Program 23
4.3.1 Water resources monitoring boreholes 23
4.3.2 Pollution monitoring boreholes 24
4.4 Groundwater Recharge Assessment 25
4.5 Satellite Imagery Study for Coastal Outflows 25
4.6 Rainfall-flow model for springs & Jedda Cave 26
4.7 Aquifer Classification and Vulnerability 26
4.7.1 Aquifer classification 26
4.7.2 Vulnerability map 28
4.8 Water Monitoring Program 28
4.8.1 During the project 28
4.8.2 Ongoing monitoring program 28
4.8.3 Costs for ongoing monitoring 32
5. GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS 34

Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page iii
5.2 Classes of Water 34

5.3 Water for Drinking Purposes 34
5.3.1 Salinity 34
5.3.2 Hardness 34
5.3.3 Other physical and chemical quality parameters 35
5.3.4 Chemical pollutants 35
5.3.5 Microbiology 35
5.4 Water for other purposes 35
6. GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 37

6.2 Presently Developed Sources 37
6.2.1 Outline 37
6.2.2 Possible threats to flow and water quality 37
6.3 Options for Increasing Water Supply 37
6.4 Analysis of Groundwater Development Options 38
6.4.1 Improve Waterfall Spring collection system 38
6.4.2 Improve Freshwater and Jones Spring collection systems 39
6.4.3 Smithson Bight borehole network 39
6.4.4 Daniel Roux Cave ‘gusher’ 40
6.5 Demand Management and Leakage Control Program 40
6.5.1 Overview 40
6.5.2 Current demand and system losses 42
6.5.3 Future demand management 44
6.6 Rainwater collection 44
6.7 Desalination 45
6.8 Summary of Options 45
6.9 Preferred Options and Priorities 46
7. WATER ALLOCATION AND CHARGING POLICY 48

7.2 Introduction 48
7.3 Water Allocation 48
7.4 Water Resources Investigations and Assessment 49
7.5 Environmental Needs 49
7.6 Licensing for Public Water Supply and Demand Management 49
7.7 Licensing for Private Water Use 50
7.8 Pricing Policy and Water Charging Arrangements 51
7.8.1 Background and context 51
7.8.2 Present situation on Christmas Island 51
7.8.3 Water costs - the level of subsidisation 52
7.8.4 Operating costs and system water loss 53
7.8.5 Water charging scenarios and implications for consumers 54
8. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 60

8.2 Introduction 60
8.3 Sources of Pollution 60
8.4 Investigations and Discussions 61
8.5 Requirements for Adequate Groundwater Protection 61
8.5.1 Land use planning 61
8.5.2 Waste management 62
8.5.3 Ongoing monitoring 62
8.5.4 Future waste disposal sites 63
9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND AWARENESS 64

Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page iv
9.2 Introduction 64
9.3 Community Consultation Efforts 64
9.3.1 Christmas Island Social Worker 68
9.3.2 Australian Mahayana Buddhist Society 69
9.3.3 Ba’hai Group 69
9.3.4 Christmas Island Chamber of Commerce 69
9.3.5 Christmas Island Phosphates 70
9.3.6 Islamic Council 70
9.4 Ongoing Consultation and Education 70
9.4.1 Context 70
9.4.2 Approach 70
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72

10.1 Conclusions 72
10.2 Recommendations 79
11. ACTION PLAN 83
12. REFERENCES 85
13. ANNEXES 87
Photographs on Front Cover:
Top Left: Flow in Jedda Cave, gauge board to right and weir to left
Top Right: Jedda pump station
Bottom Left: George Fam storage tank
Bottom Right: Waterfall at Dales
Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page v
List of Annexes
A. Project Brief 84
B. Discussion Paper - “Christmas Island Water Management - Issues for Community
Discussion” 86
C. Leaflet - “Christmas Island Water Management - Summary of Issues for Community
Discussion” in 3 languages (English, Chinese and Malay) 91
List of Tables
1. Summary of freshwater conditions at water resources monitoring boreholes 24
2. Summary of options for increasing freshwater supply 43
3. Consumption tariffs for Western Australia North 1998 52
4. Annual water consumption costs based on various charging models 52
5. Summary of charging models examined and associated outcomes 54
6. Action Plan 79
List of Figures
1. Christmas Island showing main features, key water sources and monitoring boreholes 14
2. Christmas Island aquifer classification map 29
3. Christmas Island aquifer vulnerability map 30
4. Christmas Island water supply balance, 1998 39
5. Water consumption curves for residential, commercial and public categories 49
6. Annual revenues for the three water consumption scenarios 55
Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page vi
Abbreviations
ACTEW ACTEW Corporation (formerly ACT Electricity and Water)
Administration Christmas Island Administration
APSA Asia Pacific Space Centre
ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
Asap As soon as possible
bgl below ground level
BoM Bureau of Meteorology
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CIP Christmas Island Phosphates (Mining Company)
CIR Christmas Island Resort
COAG Council of Australian Governments
CSO community service obligation
DOEH Department of the Environment and Heritage
DTRS Department of Transport and Regional Services (formerly the Department of
Transport and Regional Development)
EC electrical conductivity (a measure of salinity)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESD ecologically sustainable development
GHD Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd
GIM groundwater investigations and monitoring
IOT Indian Ocean Territories
kL kilolitre (= one thousand litres)
L litres
L/p/d litres per person per day
L/s litres per second
m metres
ML megalitres (= one million litres)
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSL mean sea level
OSS Office of the Supervising Scientist (DOEH)
PMCI Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (before CIP)
RL reduced level (by survey)
Shire Shire of Christmas Island
SKM Sinclair Knight Merz
SMB salinity monitoring borehole
WA Western Australia
WMP Water Management Plan
WSI Water Source Improvements
µS/cm microsiemens per centimetre (unit of electrical conductivity, and used as an
indicator of salinity)
Christmas Island – Water Management Plan, November 1999 page 1
Executive Summary
Introduction
The objective of this report is to present a Plan for the management of water on Christmas Island.
The Christmas Island Water Management Plan (WMP) is the culmination of 3 years of work which,
importantly, has included an extensive period of water resources investigations and monitoring at key
sites. In addition, the work has involved interaction with key stakeholders, consumers and the
Christmas Island community to determine issues, views and water usage habits. The water supply
situation on the island has been reviewed and considered in the context of directions being followed
under the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) national water reform agenda.
This WMP should be viewed as part of an ongoing water management process on the island. It is
not a static plan but one which should be reviewed, adjusted and updated as circumstances change
and new information becomes available. It is recommended that the WMP be formally updated as a
written document at intervals of approximately 5 years.
Full details of the project brief for this WMP are given in Annex A.
A significant part of the WMP project was a Groundwater Investigations and Monitoring (GIM)
Program including a major groundwater drilling component. This was required to better assess the
groundwater potential of the island and its vulnerability to contamination. Details of each component
of the GIM Program are presented in the accompanying GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999) and a summary
is contained in this Plan. The information gained from the GIM Program has been integrated in this
Plan.
Summary and Conclusions

Legislation
The principal laws relating to the management of groundwater and provision of water supply services
on Christmas Island are: the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI); the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI); and the Services and Utilities Ordinance 1996 (CI).
Under the existing arrangements on Christmas Island, aside from the possible need for additional
regulations, legislation is considered sufficient to achieve the basic objectives for provision of water
services. However, present arrangements are unsatisfactory due to the inadequate separation of
the basic functions of water resource management and protection, supply service provision and
price-setting. The WMP calls for a formal transfer of the function of water service provider to the
Shire, a clearer definition of the groundwater protection and allocation responsibilities, and the
establishment of more appropriate water price setting and charging arrangements.
In the short term, during a proposed Commonwealth, Administration and Shire Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) transfer period, existing legislation is sufficient to cover management,
protection, use and pricing of groundwater on the island. However, new regulations would facilitate
water allocation through licensing and the application of licence conditions.
In preparation for the complete separation of roles, further review of the latest Western Australia
laws relating to the Water and Rivers Commission, the Water Corporation and the Office of Water
Regulation will be necessary. New legislation will be required to establish the Shire as the water
service utility, and for pricing control by the Administration over the setting of charges by the Shire.
A co-ordinated Commonwealth approach is desirable for the progression of national water reform
agenda initiatives across all External Territories.
Administrative arrangements
Important considerations relate to the national water reform agenda just mentioned, which is being
progressed by all Governments in Australia under the COAG Strategic Framework for Water Reform
(COAG, 1994). In large measure, these reforms have been initiated by the Commonwealth, and
hence heighten the importance of implementation of the agreed policies on Christmas Island.
Four options for separation of the water service provider function have been canvassed in this WMP
and an earlier progress report (ACTEW, 1997b). It is concluded that the Shire should take up this
function fully, at least in the short to medium term. In addition, it is considered important to retain a
degree of separation from the resource management, water allocation and environment protection
functions, which should be fulfilled by the Administration with advice from other sources (e.g. Parks
Australia, Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) and other outside technical expertise).
Regulation of water prices should rest with the Commonwealth.
The Shire, which is nominally the water supply authority at present, does not exercise proper control
of the development and maintenance of water supply assets. It does not have title to land and
assets. In addition, the Shire does not have the necessary technical and financial resources to
adequately undertake such carriage. The Shire requires an engineer with the appropriate skills to
lead in the management of the water supply system as well as other Shire service assets.
The Shire should have its future clearly identified with respect to the complete range of water supply
responsibilities, so that there is some certainty and an identified need for it to ‘get the house in order’
pending the transfer of full water supply business activities. Lack of ownership of the water supply
asset, as well as lack of responsibility and control of funds, leads to lack of commitment and
accountability; which in turn can be reflected in the loss of integrity, state of repair and leakage of the
supply system. Needs exist for a thorough review of water supply infrastructure, for an ongoing
leakage control program and for an effective asset management system. These steps will lead to
requirements for further funding in some logical, priority order.
It is recognised that the range of legal and administrative arrangements required to achieve these
directions are not able to be put in place immediately. However, expeditious action to document and
reach agreement on the intended future arrangements is critical for planning and implementation of
such initiatives. An MOU between the Commonwealth and the Shire would be a positive way of
documenting agreed directions, processes and timeframes, leading to a final allocation of roles and
responsibilities. Aspects proposed to be included in the MOU are covered in section 3 of this WMP.
A critical element is timing. It is suggested that a timeframe of two to three years should be adopted
to complete all the arrangements and effect the full transfer of responsibility. However, in relation to
pricing, it is considered that the introduction of user-pays water charges should commence much
sooner – preferably by the year 2000 - using existing regulations to set charges during the MOU
period.
Groundwater Investigations and Monitoring
The GIM program was an integral part of the overall WMP development process. As noted
previously, full details of the program are presented in the accompanying Groundwater Investigations
and Monitoring Report (ACTEW, 1999) and are summarised in section 4 of this Plan. The findings
from the investigations and information gained from the monitoring have been used, as appropriate,
in other parts of this Plan.
Key results from the GIM program are:
• A substantial fresh groundwater system (basal aquifer) was found to the north of the
Smithson Bight area at and below sea level. This groundwater could be developed in the
future by drilling production boreholes to target depths just below sea level. Based on
monitoring results, there is unlikely to be freshwater within about 500 m of the coastline.
If production holes are drilled, they should be located at distances of 1,000 m or more
from the coastline and pumped at rates 3-5 L/s per borehole. It may be possible to alter
these rates after a period of monitoring of the salinity response within the groundwater,
as measured at salinity monitoring boreholes. A salinity monitoring borehole should be
drilled close to each production borehole.
• A limited amount of perched groundwater (above volcanic rock) was found in the north
east part of the island. The area around one monitoring borehole in this area (BH8) has
potential and could be further proven by additional drilling and test pumping.
• The estimated average annual recharge for Christmas Island is 50% of average annual
rainfall or about 1,000 mm. Over the area of the island where fresh groundwater is
present, the average annual recharge is about 100 gigalitres, which is equivalent to a
flow of about 3,200 L/s. The estimated sustainable yield of the groundwater system is
half the available recharge or 1,600 L/s. Average and estimated minimum flows at
present sources are much less than this potential yield (5% and 2% of the estimated
sustainable yield, respectively).
• A pilot study using Landsat satellite imagery was not successful at locating freshwater
outflows along the coastline. Imagery obtained with sensors (on satellite or aeroplane)
having a thermal resolution of better than 0.1°C may be more useful than the resolution
available for this study (0.5°C). However, the method of using remote imagery appears
to be of limited use, as the mixing of freshwater and seawater within the caves and
fissures along the coastline results in outflows which are already quite diffuse even
where freshwater outflows are known to occur.
• For Jedda Cave, a simple formula (model) was derived to predict flows for a given month
based on the previous 5 months rainfall recorded at the Jedda raingauge. This could be
applied only in low flow periods when the flow is between about 50 and 20 L/s, and the
5 month rainfall is less than about 250 mm. Based on analysis of lows in 1997 and
1998, the flow response in Jedda Cave is lagged between 2 and 3 months behind Jedda
rainfall. A more complex (non-linear) model was developed for Jedda for higher flow
periods. This model can estimate the current month’s flow from the average of monthly
rainfall for the previous 2 months and the average monthly flow at Jedda for preceding
month. This model should be used with caution as it can under-estimate or over-
estimate actual flows and should be refined as more data becomes available in the
future. In the future, similar models could be developed for the springs at and near
Waterfall and for those at Ross Hill Gardens. The Waterfall springs will firstly require the
installation of flow monitoring equipment and collection of data over at least 12 months.
• A simple classification of the island’s fresh groundwater into perched aquifers (above
sea level) and basal aquifers (in contact with seawater) is presented and summarised in
a map (refer Figure 2 in section 4.7). This map should be considered preliminary as
much of the data has been inferred. Based on limited data, particularly in the Smithson
Bight area, it is assumed that the basal groundwater within 500 m of the coastline is
likely to have a salinity level higher than freshwater due to mixing with seawater,
particularly during extended dry periods. The actual distance may vary from 500 m
depending on local differences in permeability, especially if volcanic rock is present
below sea level near the coastline (e.g. parts of the eastern and western coastlines). For
a given location, the position of the freshwater/seawater boundary will vary according to
preceding rainfall and hence recharge conditions.
• As an approximate guide, no basal groundwater should be developed by pumping within
500 m of the coastline because there is a strong possibility that this groundwater would
be brackish in extended dry periods, and even if it was not, the action of pumping is likely
to induce seawater intrusion.
• The groundwater resources of Christmas Island are rated as having a high to very high
vulnerability to contamination. The areas of high and very high vulnerability, correspond
approximately to basal and perched groundwater aquifers (refer Figure 3 in section 4.7.
Strict controls over potential pollution sources, particularly waste disposal sites, are
absolutely essential. In particular, planning procedures should take account of the
vulnerability of groundwater when siting waste disposal areas, urban areas with
associated sewerage and stormwater systems, and other potential sources of pollution.
It is recommended that a ‘zero discharge’ policy is the most appropriate for all potential
pollutants over the whole island.
• A water monitoring program was developed during the course of the WMP process to
enable vital water resources information to be collected at key sites, including some of
the presently developed sources and some potential sources. These sites were Jedda
Cave, Ross Hill Gardens Springs, Daniel Roux Cave and the water resources monitoring
boreholes installed during the project. Unfortunately, it was not possible to establish
monitoring systems at the very important sites of Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones
Springs. In addition to the water resources monitoring sites, flow meters were installed
at key sites on major pipelines, particularly at all sources (Jedda, Jane Up, Ross Hill
Gardens and Waterfall). Water quality information was obtained at water resources
sites and pollution monitoring boreholes, and a program for ongoing monitoring has been
prepared. Training was provided to two staff from the Shire during the course of the
project. Data processing and analysis was undertaken by Ecowise Environmental and
key results reported to the Shire during the course of the Project.
• It is essential to continue the water monitoring program established during the project as
a long term activity for the rational assessment, development and management of the
island’s water resources. In the foreseeable future, the current procedure for data
processing, analysis and storage should be continued. This requires data to be
forwarded on a regular basis to an external agency (currently Ecowise Environmental)
for these tasks to be undertaken.
• It is recommended that a formal reporting system be established whereby quarterly
reports are prepared by the external agency and submitted to the agency responsible for
water resources management on the island. This would be similar to procedures
already implemented in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
• The annual cost of the water monitoring program can be split into three categories. The
cost of the first category (data collection and initial processing in Christmas Island) can
be obtained from the Shire. The cost of the second category (data analysis and
reporting by an external water resources agency) is $18,500, which includes a
recommended inspection visit (maximum of one week) to the island at two year intervals.
The cost of the third category (equipment repairs and periodic replacement) is $3,500.
Groundwater Quality Standards
Drinking (potable) water should meet the requirements of Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
Based on available data, the water quality of perched groundwater on Christmas Island meets the
requirements of these guidelines except for hardness. It is noted that the guideline for hardness is
not based on health considerations but is more an aesthetic or convenience consideration (i.e
related to scaling in pipes, water heating elements and other fittings).
Other physical and chemical quality parameters (e.g. salinity as measured by conductivity and
chloride ion, pH, turbidity and common specific ions) all meet guideline values.
For the basal groundwater, for instance at Smithson Bight, no comprehensive tests have been done.
However, using conductivity as a reasonable means of comparison between samples, the
freshwater in the basal aquifer in Smithson Bight is similar in quality to the perched water from where
it flows. In future, representative samples should be obtained from selected Smithson Bight
monitoring boreholes and tested for a range of parameters. This should become part of an annual
water monitoring component.
Samples from two pollution monitoring boreholes at the rubbish disposal/landfill site and Jedda Cave
were tested for chemical pollution (hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCBs, nutrients and heavy metals) in
mid-1998. No sign of pollution was found except for a value of lead at twice the Guideline value in
one monitoring borehole. A retest should be obtained to ascertain if this level persists.
Samples obtained in October 1998 from Jedda Cave, Waterfall Spring, the Ross Hill Gardens pump
station and the Daniel Roux Cave gusher were tested for a range of heavy metals, including lead and
arsenic, and found to have levels below the test level of determination.
An ongoing monitoring program is required for the potential chemical pollution at the monitoring
boreholes and water supply sources.
The bacteriological quality of the (chlorinated) water in the water supply distribution system has
generally been good in recent years, although some samples showing positive counts for all
parameters tested (total coliforms, E. Coli, faecal streptococci). In particular, occasional samples
showed positive E. Coli counts. As the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend a zero
level of E. Coli, these were obviously non-acceptable tests. As the bacteriological quality of water
supply can directly impact on public health, it is essential that the water delivered to consumers
continues to be disinfected. The chlorination systems at Jedda and Waterfall need to be properly
operated and maintained and regular chlorine residual tests need to be continued.
Groundwater Development Options
A summary of development and other options for increasing the supply of water for beneficial use on
the island is provided in this WMP (refer section 6 and Table 2). The existing developed sources
(Jedda and Waterfall) provide ample supply for current population levels and environmental needs.
Water from these sources should be maximised and utilised in a sustainable manner before any
investment to develop new sources is considered. Improvements to the Waterfall Spring should be
undertaken as a priority item, followed by improvements to the other two springs (Freshwater and
Jones) that feed the Waterfall pumping system. As a next priority, the secondary sources of Jane
Up and Ross Hill Gardens should be utilised to the fullest extent. If additional demand needs to be
met, then the spring flows from Harrison’s and Hewan’s Springs at Ross Hill Gardens should be
utilised.
Parallel with these activities, effective demand management (water pricing and education) and
ongoing leakage control programs should be implemented. The leakage control program should
include repair of known leaks and continual detection and repair of future leaks. It is noted here that
such programs require a long term commitment and, as discussed in Section 3, the capacity of the
water supply authority should be strengthened to ensure that this can be achieved.
All of the above activities require no new source development. While ever the cost of reducing water
loss, or the cost of conserving water amongst consumers, is less than the amortised per kilolitre
cost of developing a new source, then these avenues will remain the cheapest source of water and
should be pursued in preference to developing new sources.
If additional water is required beyond the capacity of current sources, the next most suitable options
would be either groundwater development in the Smithson Bight area or development of the Daniel
Roux Cave gusher. The development costs of the gusher would be lower per unit of water supplied
but there are a number of other issues (refer section 6.4.4), which would need to be discussed and
resolved. Table 2 does not account for operating costs and depreciation on assets, in comparing
options. A more detailed economic appraisal would be required to calculate total costs.
Investigation of water sources other than groundwater, including rainwater collection tanks, was
beyond the scope of this Plan. However, rainwater collection was briefly considered as there are a
number of significant benefits with such collection systems. Rainwater collection tanks can
decrease the demand on the public water supply system during normal periods and increase the
security of supply at normal times (e.g. people can access this source if the public water supply is
temporarily unavailable for a variety of reasons). They also allow consumers to manage their own
water quality (salinity and hardness is lower and bacteria can be controlled by either boiling or
filtering). There is merit in further considering rainwater collection systems as part of the overall
water management on the island. There could be potential for implementation through a subsidy
scheme for private houses and a government funded scheme for government controlled houses.
Water allocation and charging policy
Consistent with the intent of the ‘water allocation’ milestones under the national water reform
agenda, activities and responsibilities concerning water allocation on Christmas Island should
embrace resource investigation and assessment, allocation of water for consumer use and
environmental needs, and the licensing of any private use. Summary points and conclusions on
each of these aspects, and on the issue of water pricing, are provided below.
Water resources investigation and assessment
There is sufficient information on some existing water sources to make reasonable estimates of
sustainable yields and provide for water allocation to meet environmental and community needs.
Exceptions, however, are the Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones Spring sources, which were not
included in the investigations during this project due to ongoing difficulties over lease responsibilities
between the Commonwealth and Christmas Island Resort (CIR). It is essential that monitoring
systems be installed and operated at the three above-mentioned water sources. On-going
monitoring at these and other sites is essential for the long-term management of the island’s water
resources.
In conducting its groundwater management, allocation and environment protection functions, it is

important that the Administration periodically call on technical expertise. Provided water supply
system efficiency is improved and demand management steps taken, developed water sources are
considered sufficient to meet the reasonable demands of around twice the present population.
Environmental needs
The skills and expertise of Parks Australia and the Environment Officer should be used to address
environmental flow requirements, provision for which needs to be made by the Administration as a
priority. Arrangements need to be formalised and documented to advise the Shire of the
environmental flow requirements at sources. Preferably, these flows should be automated in the
medium term.
Allocation for water supply, and demand management
The current administrative arrangements on Christmas Island, which do not separate roles
sufficiently, preclude the effective operation of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI)
as far as water allocation functions are concerned. Explicit separation of roles and moves to
formalise the Shire’s responsibilities as the water utility, would assist in the achievement of national
water reform objectives on Christmas Island.
Given appropriately formulated regulations under the above Act, this legislation would be appropriate
to regulate bulk water entitlements, to provide for environmental flows, and to require essential
system and water use efficiency improvements on Christmas Island. A similar approach would
need to be adopted in relation to any private water sourcing activities on the island.
An effective demand management strategy needs to be developed in consultation with the local
community. The directions, content and resourcing aspects of the demand management strategy
should be integrated with the MOU between the Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire.
Water pricing policy and charging arrangements
The intent of milestones under the COAG national water reform agenda is that rural water supplies
are economically and environmentally sustainable, that users receive clear price signals through
consumption-based tariffs, and that cost recovery provisions apply. A target of year 2001 has been
set (ARMCANZ, 1996). Where cross-subsidies continue to exist, they should be made transparent
(e.g. under community service obligation (CSO) arrangements).
The present delivery of the water service on Christmas Island lacks the degree of ‘commerciality’
called for under the national water reform agenda. Water supply system losses (primarily leakage)
are higher than ‘acceptable practice’ levels in the water industry and require rectification.
The median domestic water consumption level on Christmas island is in the order of 390 kL/year
and average consumption in the order of 540 kL/year. This can be compared with mainland
Australia where average residential consumption is in the order of 350 kL/year. There is a minority of
consumers at the top end of consumption using as much water as is consumed by the remaining
majority of residential users. As illustrated elsewhere in this WMP (refer section 7.8.5) domestic
consumers who use some 100 kL/year pay the same amount as consumers using some
2,000 kL/year.
In the commercial sector, some 20% of consumers use 40 kL/year or less and pay $320 each,
compared with the highest consumption level, two orders of magnitude higher , who pay the same
charge of $320. The public sector is even more inequitable, with top level consumption being nearly
three orders of magnitude higher than consumption amongst the bottom 20% of consumers, but for
the same annual charge of $462. These anomalies will pertain until there is a consumption-based
pricing signal given in the water charging arrangements.
It is noteworthy that unfettered water consumption as well as excessive system losses lead to very
high operating costs for the pipelines and pumps involved. Pump failure and wear will be higher than
a more normal situation of demand and supply. Sourcing and supplying water on the island involves
high electricity costs that are subsidised. Without a water pricing structure based on payment for
use, and without an onus of ‘commerciality’ on the Shire, excessive consumption will continue
amongst a small segment of the community and system losses will continue.
It should also be noted that system losses provide the most obvious and least cost source of water
to meet growth in demand. If the system losses are stemmed, then essentially, this additional water
will be available from current sources (e.g. Jedda) for future growth in water demand.
Now that consumer meters are installed, consumption-based pricing needs to be introduced without
delay. Preferably, a fixed charge or connection fee should apply, supported by a consumption-based
tariff (or tariffs) from the first kilolitre used. Consumption-based pricing models examined in this
report demonstrate the advantages of water usage tariffs in registering annual bills, commensurate
with levels of water usage. Clearly, top level consumers will require early warning of the impacts of
annual water bills under a user-pays system. A community ‘induction’ period would seem highly
appropriate.
Six pricing models - and their potential revenue generation - were reviewed (see section 7.8.5 and
Table 5 of this WMP). Model 6, involving a fixed charge of $130 and consumption tariffs of $0.15/kL
to 355 kilolitres and $0.70/kL above 355 kilolitres per year, responds best to the goals listed in this
WMP.
Groundwater protection requirements
The need for care and protection of groundwater stems from its environmental value and its vital
importance to the local island community. Significant costs could be associated with the removal of
any contamination of groundwater. The most likely and possibly largest risk is posed by leachates
from rubbish disposal. Other possible sources of pollution include: leaking underground storage
tanks and pipelines; chemical usage; pollution from sewage and stormwater; mining activities and
wastes; and sea water intrusion.
During the island visit in October 1998, it was apparent that moves were afoot to site a new waste
disposal facility in an excavated and mined pit-area near the Airport. Advice has been given
previously that this location is inappropriate because of proximity to groundwater. Present
knowledge continues to point to a preferred solution for a waste disposal site away from potential
freshwater areas ie to where impacts of groundwater pollution are low - South Point is still
considered the best, even if a space port is located there.
As an important component of the WMP, groundwater protection measures should include:
• land use controls, including total or partial restriction of development in areas which may
impact on vulnerable groundwater resources,
• use of effluent discharge standards, and
• the control of storage and transmission of chemical substances.
The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI) imposes a licensing system in respect of any
activity which may pollute the environment. There is a need to exercise the ‘precautionary principle’
with respect to waste disposal where there is scientific uncertainty about the potential for
groundwater pollution. Licensing should require precautions by operators, including the drilling and
regular monitoring of pollution monitoring boreholes. Strict guidelines and procedures concerning
the locations of chemical and other substances near known or potential water resources are
required. Best practice environment protection measures, including leachate containment and
treatment, are required.
Given the shortage of land on the island, the restrictions on sea dumping, and the costs of back-
loading materials to the mainland, it is important that waste for landfill be minimised and that every
cubic metre of waste landfill space is used efficiently. This requires appropriate planning, design and
funding. Issues of waste separation, incineration of hospital waste, and alternative arrangements for
handling toxic and hazardous waste need to be carefully addressed.
Ongoing monitoring for pollution is as an essential ingredient to water supply security. If pollution
was detected at a water source (e.g. Jedda, Waterfall), then the source would need to be closed at
least until re-testing was undertaken. Where pollution continued, the island would have a significant
water supply problem. Alternative sources would need to be brought on line and remedial steps
taken to decontaminate the groundwater. The possibility of such difficult and expensive actions
underlines the real need to prevent contamination of water resources.
Community involvement and awareness

The need for public consultation is part of the philosophy of ecologically sustainable development
(ESD) and is reinforced by COAG’s national water reform agenda. Within this context, and under
the terms of the brief, community involvement was adopted as a most important aspect.
During visits to the island, contact was maintained with successive Administration staff, as well as
with the CEO, Shire President and relevant employees of the Shire. These meetings provided
opportunity for briefings and discussions on the nature of the work, outcomes and assessment of
water supply problems and needs, and appropriate directions on key matters. The provision of
comprehensive progress reports by the Consultants (ACTEW, 1997a; 1997b) has provided
opportunity to influence water operations and management directions on the island. These also
facilitated useful discussions on the appropriateness of emerging directions in the draft WMP.
During the October/November 1996 visit, meetings and discussions focussed on a draft public
discussion paper ‘Christmas Island Water Management - Issues for Community Discussion’, which
was finalised by the Consultants in December 1996. Local radio was utilised to ‘air’ key emerging
issues for the island community. Following this visit, the leaflet ‘Christmas Island Water
Management - Summary of Issues for Community Discussion’, was prepared and translated into
Chinese and Malay versions. All of this material was circulated to various stakeholders and
community representatives for comment, together with invitations to a public meeting.
The public meeting, in May 1997, provided an opportunity to present key elements of a draft
Christmas Island WMP and to stimulate discussion. Interest was shown in the issues of system
loss, water waste and water pricing. Comparison with consumption patterns on the mainland were
made, while others questioned the appropriateness of comparisons because Christmas Island was
isolated and had different lifestyle, tradition, cost of living, etc. Members of the Chinese community
indicated there was concern about ‘user-pays’ for water, suggesting there should always be
subsidisation of living costs.
Meetings and discussions were held with a range of other government officials, and representatives
of community and private organisations. Their views and suggestions are recorded in this WMP.
The issue of public consultation and education is one of the five key areas for attention under the
national water reform agenda. Clearly, it would be unfortunate to lose the momentum of community
interaction and awareness raising on Christmas Island. There is a need for ongoing consultation
and public meetings by the Shire, as part of its role of water service provider, and by the
Administration because of its policy, financial and administrative role. This is particularly relevant to
the Chinese and Malay communities, where special efforts are required to raise awareness and
knowledge of the issues.
The Administration and Shire need to advise the public of intended plans and directions; with a view
to obtaining ongoing involvement and reasonable levels of support and understanding for changes to
water pricing policy and user-pays charging. There is a need for the promotion of water use
efficiency and conservation to be a permanent, ongoing arrangement. This includes the provision of
advice on water use and the conduct of simple water audits or inspections. Water supply billing
times provide an opportunity to promote water issues and educational material.
Water conservation should be conducted by the Shire in cooperation with a range of other key
people on the island. The ongoing consultative and community education role should be integrated
with the demand management strategy, included in the proposed MOU, and preferably identified also
in future Administration licensing arrangements for bulk water extractions.
Recommendations
Recommendations emerging in this Plan, in response to the items listed in the original brief and the
findings of the Consultants, are given below. The suggested agency or agencies to implement each
recommendation are shown in bold and brackets.
1. Recognise the importance of the national water reform agenda and its applicability to Christmas
Island. Act to achieve:
• formal transfer of the water service provider role, function and infrastructure assets to
the Shire of Christmas Island;
• a clearer definition of the groundwater protection and water allocation responsibilities of
the Christmas Island Administration; and
• the establishment of appropriate water pricing regulation.
(Commonwealth and Administration)
2. Develop an MOU between the Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire, covering issues
identified in this WMP (refer section 3), and including:
• relevant COAG objectives and milestones, especially year 2001 timeline;
• review of water supply infrastructure and establishment of an asset management
system;
• ongoing leakage control program;
• system refurbishment program;
• demand management strategy (including ‘water pricing’ - see next recommendation);
• the roles of the Administration and Shire on matters covered in MOU (e.g. water charging
and community consultation);
• administrative, legislative, financial and resourcing targets and arrangements (e.g.
engineering skills, Commonwealth CSO levels); and
• timing considerations.
(Commonwealth, Administration and Shire)
3. In relation to water pricing:
• establish and introduce a user-pays charging system for water on Christmas Island;
• adopt the preferred water charging model in this report, or similar, for testing and
introduction;
• adopt a three to six month ‘induction’ period for introduction of the new water charging
system;
• ensure the Shire database spreadsheet of metered water consumption is continually
reviewed for accuracy and updated;
• ensure community induction addresses matters identified in this WMP (section 7.8.5);
• test the preferred water charging model in the lead up to the induction period, to ensure
that equity and revenue goals will be realised;
• commence introduction of the preferred water charging model in 1999-2000; and
• cover the above-listed steps and objectives for water pricing in the MOU.
4. During the role/responsibility ‘transfer phase’ (MOU period), maximise the use of present
legislation to effect water resources management, allocation and protection, water supply service
provision and pricing regulation. To facilitate this:
• introduce regulations as necessary and appropriate under the Rights in Water and
Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI), to provide for water allocation through licensing and the
application of conditions, for example, in relation to water restrictions during drought or
other emergencies; (Commonwealth, Administration) and
• use the existing Services and Utilities Ordinance 1996 (CI) to effect new water charges
and pricing control in the interim, until new utility and pricing legislation is prepared by the
end of the MOU transfer period - see next recommendation. (Administration)
5. Review present Western Australia laws relating to the Water and Rivers Commission, the Water
Corporation and the Office of Water Regulation, in preparation for the complete separation of
roles, and introduce the necessary legislative changes required to effect these arrangements by
the end of the ‘transfer phase’. (Commonwealth)
6. In relation to groundwater resource monitoring and protection:

• Continue the water monitoring program established during development of this Plan, and
adopt additional recommended components (refer section 4.8), as a long term activity for
the rational assessment, development and management of the island’s water resources.
(Commonwealth, Administration)
• The current procedure for data processing, analysis and back-up storage of the water
monitoring data should be continued. In the foreseeable future, this requires data to be
for these tasks to be undertaken. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• Establish a formal reporting system whereby quarterly reports are prepared by the
external agency and submitted to the agency responsible for water resources
management on the island. This would be similar to procedures already implemented in
the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The estimated average annual costs are $18,500 for
analysis, reporting and a monitoring visit at two year intervals. (Commonwealth,
Administration)
• Budget for monitoring equipment replacements at an average annual cost of $3,500
(details are provided in Table 19, section 7).
• Predicted flows for Jedda from the rainfall-flow models developed during this Project
should be checked against future monitored flows at Jedda and the results reported in
the proposed quarterly monitoring reports. Suggested modifications should be
recommended.
• Purchase a small diameter water level sensor and data logger for monitoring selected
salinity monitoring boreholes (approximate cost of $5,000). (Administration, Shire)
• Purchase a replacement portable computer for water monitoring (approximate cost of
$3,000). (Administration, Shire)
• The survey levels on the tops of boreholes BH4 and BH5 should be checked.
(Administration)
• Periodic flow data should be collected at the data loggers on the three key distribution
tanks (Drumsite, George Fam and Hospital) to check the status of the pipe systems fed
by these tanks. (Administration, Shire)
• Collect and analyse water samples every 12 months from the pollution monitoring
boreholes at the current rubbish disposal area, nearby water sources (Jedda, Waterfall,
Ross Hill Gardens) and selected Smithson Bight monitoring boreholes. Analyse these
for water chemistry and potential contaminants. Ensure similar monitoring practice is
adopted for approved new waste disposal sites. Note the importance of monitoring for
pollutants and the procedures required in the event of pollution of an existing water
supply source. (Administration, Shire)
• Adopt a salinity value (in electrical conductivity units) of 1,500 µS/cm as an upper limit for
freshwater groundwater, with a desirable objective of 1,000 µS/cm. (Commonwealth,
Administration)
• If additional water resources development is undertaken in the future, install adequate
monitoring systems and allocate human resources to ensure that the impacts of
extraction on, and possible pollution of, the water resources are assessed.
• Employ land use controls, waste disposal restrictions and best waste management
practice, together with the licensing provisions of the environmental protection legislation,
to protect vulnerable groundwater resources. It is recommended that a ‘zero discharge’
policy is the most appropriate for all potential groundwater pollutants over the whole
island. (Commonwealth, Administration, Shire)
• Adopt waste reduction at source, and reuse/recycling practices in the interests of
groundwater protection in particular and sustainable development in general.
(Commonwealth, Administration, Shire)
• A capability to undertake an ongoing programme of ‘leakage control’ (comprising both

leak detection and rectification) should be developed and sustained within the water
supply authority. Equipment should be purchased and staff should be trained in the
necessary techniques for leakage detection. The budget needs to allow for such work
as well as the ongoing repairs of pipelines as leaks are detected. (Commonwealth,
Administration, Shire)
7. In relation to groundwater quality standards:
• An ongoing monitoring program is required for the testing of samples for basic water
chemistry and potential chemical pollution at the monitoring boreholes and water supply
sources. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• The chlorination systems at Jedda and Waterfall need to be properly operated and
maintained and regular chlorine residual tests need to be continued. (Shire)
8. In relation to groundwater development options:
• Improve the water collection system at Waterfall Spring, as a first priority, followed by
improvements to Freshwater Spring and Jones Spring. (Commonwealth)
• Recognise that existing water sources are sufficient to meet the needs of around twice
the current population, provided water supply system efficiency is improved and demand
management steps taken. (Commonwealth, Administration and Shire)
• Maximise use of the current sources (Jedda, Waterfall and then Jane Up followed by
Ross Hill Gardens) and implement effective demand management measures including
an ongoing leak control program, before developing new sources. (Commonwealth,
• Undertake a more detailed assessment of the next most feasible option which is either
Smithson Bight groundwater development or Daniel Roux Cave gusher collection, taking
account of significant benefits and issues related to the latter option. (Commonwealth)
500 m of the coastline. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• If production holes are drilled in the Smithson Bight area, they should be located at
distances of 1,000 m or more from the coastline and initially pumped at rates 3-5 L/s per
borehole. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• Two investigation holes should be drilled between BN1 and WB30, south-west of
Jane Up, to further assess the basal groundwater potential. This drilling should be done
at the same time as possible future production and monitoring borehole drilling.
• Undertake a supplementary study of the feasibility of introducing household rainwater
collection systems. (Commonwealth, Administration and Shire)
9. In relation to groundwater allocation and sustainable use:
• continue to periodically utilise external technical expertise in the monitoring and
assessment of developed groundwater sources. (Administration)
• use Parks Australia and the Christmas Island Environment Officer to address
environmental flow requirements, and ensure that these flows are provided for by the
Shire (water supply service provider) as a priority. (Administration)
• install, operate and maintain monitoring systems at Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones
Springs sources near CIR. (Administration, Shire)
• license water allocation and require reporting from Shire and private operators.
(Administration, Shire)
10. In relation to community involvement and awareness:
• ensure there is ongoing community consultation in regard to the water reform initiatives
underway on Christmas Island. (Shire and Administration)
• develop suitable administrative arrangements to ensure the water conservation role is

performed by the Shire (water service provider) with the support of other stakeholders,
including the Administration, the Christmas Island Environment Officer, Parks Australia,
CIP and CIR. (Administration, Shire, other Christmas Island agencies)
• develop the capacity to provide simple conservation advice and water use checks for
customers. (Shire)
• provide ongoing advice to the community on water use patterns, derived from ongoing
metered water consumption data. (Shire)
• integrate the Shire’s ongoing consultative and community education role with the
demand management strategy. (Shire)
11. Adopt a co-ordinated approach across all of the External Territories in implementation of the
national water reform agenda. (Commonwealth - for consideration)
12. Update the WMP as a written document at intervals of approximately 5 years. (Administration
and Shire)
Action Plan
The Action Plan to implement the recommendations of this WMP is summarised at Table 6 in
section 11.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The objective of this report is to present a Plan for the management of water on Christmas Island.
The Christmas Island Water Management Plan (WMP) is the culmination of 3 years of work which,
importantly, has included an extensive period of water resources investigations and monitoring at key
sites in order to gain a better appreciation of these important groundwater resources. Importantly
also, the work has involved interaction with key stakeholders, consumers and the Christmas Island
community to determine views and water usage habits. The water supply situation on the island has
been reviewed and considered in the context of directions being followed under the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) national water reform agenda.
The work was primarily undertaken by Tony Falkland of Ecowise Environmental, ACTEW
Corporation and Rod Usback of Sustainable Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd (formerly of ACTEW
Corporation). Assistance with components of the work program, especially the ongoing water
resources monitoring, was provided by personnel from the Shire of Christmas Island. The
installation and training in the use of the water resources monitoring equipment was provided by
John Skinner of Ecowise Environmental. The groundwater drilling program was planned and
supervised by Douglas Partners and undertaken by Afrac Drilling.
This WMP should be viewed as part of an ongoing water management process on the island. It is
not a static plan but one which should be reviewed, adjusted and updated as circumstances change
and new information becomes available. It is recommended that the WMP be formally updated as a
written document at intervals of approximately 5 years.
On occasions, during development of the Plan, it was found necessary to widen the scope of the
study in some areas, so as to give more comprehensive consideration to important aspects not
necessarily specified in the project brief – for example, some consideration has been given to
operating costs for water supply and the level of subsidisation of costs. During the project, special
attention has been given to the issue of solid waste disposal, with some coverage of appropriate
directions on the island in view of the special circumstances and potential threat to groundwater
resources from waste disposal activity. On other occasions, additional work was prompted by
parallel studies that related to water issues.
Figure 1 shows the main features of Christmas Island and key water supply resources and water
supply sites mentioned in this Plan.
1.2 Background
In June 1995, ACTEW Corporation (ACTEW) was engaged by GHD Pty Ltd (formerly WORKS
Australia), acting as agents for the Department of Transport and Regional Services (formerly the
Department of Environment, Sport and Territories) and the Christmas Island Administration, to
undertake this project.
In the original proposal (ACTEW, 1995a), the Water Management Plan was entitled the Water
Management and Protection Plan. It was subsequently decided to adopt the shorter title as elements
related to water resources protection form part of the overall management process and are
embodied in the report.
A significant part of the WMP project was a major groundwater drilling program, followed by a period
of monitoring. This component was required to better assess the groundwater potential of the island
and its vulnerability to contamination. The information gained has been integrated into this Plan. For
the groundwater drilling activity, ACTEW associated with Douglas Partners to undertake planning
and supervision of this program.
Further background on these activities, and parallel projects related to upgrading water sources and
drilling of trial stormwater disposal boreholes, is contained in ACTEW (1995a, 1995b and 1995c).
Additional details of the Water Source Improvements Project including design sketches are
contained in ACTEW (1996a).
Figure 1 Christmas Island showing main features, key water sources and monitoring boreholes
Formal progress reports on the WMP Project were provided in 1997 (refer ACTEW, 1997a and
1997b). These reports were based on earlier site visits to Christmas Island by Tony Falkland and
Rod Usback in October/November 1996 and May 1997 and analysis of information gained following
these visits. A Draft Water Management Plan was prepared in late 1998, following the October 1998
visit to the island, and circulated to the Administration, the Territories Office of DTRS, the Shire and
GHD Pty Ltd for comments. This final Water Management Plan has incorporated the comments
received.
As outlined in Falkland (1994), the WMP is required to enable the rational assessment, development,
allocation, monitoring and protection of the island's water resources.
In response to the Project Brief (refer Annex A), the WMP Project was required to address the
following components:
• Legislation (WMP1)
• Administrative requirements (WMP2)
• Groundwater investigations and monitoring (WMP3)
• Groundwater quality standards (WMP4)
• Groundwater development options (WMP5)
• Mechanisms of groundwater allocation and charging policy (WMP6)
• Groundwater protection requirements (WMP7)
• Public education and awareness (WMP8)
• Opportunities for community involvement (WMP9).
To identify the various components of the project, a numbering system was introduced. The prefix
‘WMP’ is used for the Water Management Plan components and the prefix ‘GIM’ is used for the
parallel Groundwater Investigations and Monitoring Program. The components of the GIM Program,
which are sub-components of WMP3 above, are set out below:
• Conduct a drilling and testing program (GIM1) to investigate:
- the location and yields of fresh groundwater in both the perched groundwater in the
high level volcanic rock, and the basal groundwater body underlying the island, and
- potential pollution in the vicinity of existing landfill and proposed landfill sites.
• Conduct the following specific studies in conjunction with, and following, the drilling:
- recharge analysis (GIM2);
- use of satellite imagery to locate freshwater flows (GIM3);
- development of a rainfall-flow model for springs and Jedda Cave (GIM4);
- development of an aquifer classification and vulnerability map (GIM5);
• Prepare a monitoring program for water resources and water supply (GIM6); and
• Prepare a processing, archiving, analysis and reporting program and procedure for water
resources and water supply data (also GIM6).
Details of the Groundwater Investigation and Monitoring Program are presented in the accompanying
report Groundwater Investigation and Monitoring Report (ACTEW, 1999) and a summary is
contained in section 4 of this Plan. The findings from the investigations and information gained from
the monitoring have been used in other parts of this Water Management Plan, as appropriate.
1.3 Structure of the Plan

This report follows the project brief in much the same order as set out above. The essence of the
WMP is contained in the Action Plan (refer section 11), which is derived from the WMP’s
recommendations (refer section 10 and the Executive Summary).
2. LEGISLATION
2.1 Requirements of the Brief

• Review legislation and assess the need for regulations to manage and protect the
island's groundwater resources.
• Conduct discussions with government agencies responsible for legislation on the island
to assess the most appropriate procedures to follow.
• Consider relevant regulations in other external territories of Australia, particularly Cocos
(Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island, in the interests of maintaining a uniform approach
where appropriate.
2.2 Introduction
In the early stages of the WMP Project, discussions were conducted with legal staff of the Indian
Ocean Territories Office (of DTRS) in Perth concerning legislation applying to the IOT’s and the
expected directions and developments emerging from the application of relevant Western Australian
legislation by the Commonwealth in these Territories. The changing legislative regime applying to
water management and supply on Christmas Island was explored and identified in the precursor
paper to the public discussion paper ‘Christmas Island Water Management - Issues for Community
Discussion’ - December 1996 (see ACTEW, 1997a). The legislative regime, as it related to ‘water’
on Christmas Island, was also canvassed with the Territories Office (DTRS), Canberra, through this
process.
Minimal attention was given to water-related legislation applying in other external Territories such as
the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island. This was primarily because of the emergence of the
national water reform agenda on mainland Australia, and the associated program for adoption of this
agenda by the Commonwealth and the States. It is considered that the implications of these reforms
are so significant as to require a fresh approach by the Commonwealth, preferably co-ordinated
across all of the External Territories, in respect of the roles, responsibilities and legislative support
aspects for water management and supply services in these territories.
2.3 Present Laws Relevant to Water on Christmas Island

on Christmas Island are as follows:
• the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI) which is the principal law setting
out the rights to water and the ways in which its use may be allocated and controlled. It
provides that all rights to the use and flow of water in any of the Territory’s underground
and surface water supplies are vested in the Commonwealth. The Act is essentially a
law concerned with the allocation of water and its use for irrigation purposes.
• the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI) which, amongst other things, provides
for protection of the environment, including the Island’s water sources. It imposes a
licensing system in respect of any activity which may pollute the environment.
• the Services and Utilities Ordinance 1996 (CI) which authorises the Administration to
provide water and sewerage services on Christmas Island and to impose charges for the
provision of such services.
The Shire of Christmas Island and the Territory’s Executive Director of Public Health also have roles
under the Local Government Act 1960 (WA) (CI) and the Health Act 1911 (WA) (CI), respectively, in
ensuring that the island’s water services comply with relevant standards.
The Legislation and Policy Support Section of the Territories Office (of DTRS) in Canberra was
invited to comment on the above legislative regime and, essentially, confirmed its accuracy at the
time of the Consultant’s third visit to Christmas Island in October 1998.
While there are other relevant Western Australian laws, none of these govern the supply of water in
the Territory. Some do not apply in the Territory at present. Others apply, but either require a
proclamation or declaration to be issued in order for them to operate, or only govern the operations of
agencies which have yet to be established in the Territory. In this regard, no action has been taken
to complete the introduction of the Water Boards Act 1904 (WA) (CI). In any event, the more
contemporary changes to Western Australian legislation to implement the national water reform
agenda in that state would require further examination before settling the application of such WA law
to Christmas Island.
2.4 Directions and Requirements

Under the administrative arrangements on Christmas Island, existing legislation is considered
sufficient to achieve the basic objectives for water services. However, as reported in section 3
(Administrative Arrangements), the present arrangements are considered to be unsatisfactory - with
inadequate formal separation of basic water management, groundwater protection, water supply
services and water charge-setting roles and functions.
The directions advocated in this report call for:
• a formal transfer of the function of water service provider to the Shire (includes transfer
of ownership of assets);
• a clearer definition of the groundwater protection and allocation responsibilities of the
Commonwealth through Christmas Island Administration; and
• the establishment of more appropriate water price setting and charging arrangements.
These proposals are consistent with directions nationally under the agreed COAG Strategic
Framework for Water Reform (COAG, 1994). In the short term, during an agreed ‘function transfer’
period (see Memorandum of Understanding discussion in section 3.5), existing legislation is
sufficient to formally cover the management, protection and use of groundwater on the island.
The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI) vests ownership of water in the
Commonwealth and should be reviewed as a mechanism to be used to license the extraction of bulk
water by the Shire (or other organisations). This could include the imposition of appropriate
conditions, as advocated in section 7.6 concerning the matter of water allocation. It is noted,
however, that regulations may be required to facilitate water allocation through licensing and the
application of conditions as referred to above, for example, in respect to water restrictions during
drought or other emergencies.
The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI) provides the necessary statute to protect
groundwater systems and the environment, including the need for water for nature. Licences, and
the setting of conditions, are required to dispose of wastes and wastewater which could pollute
groundwater on the island.
The Services and Utilities Ordinance 1996 (CI) authorises the Christmas Island Administration to
provide water services and to impose charges for the provision of such services. Under
arrangements (e.g. resulting from the implementation of an agreed MOU, as outlined in section 3.5)
which move towards complete transfer of the water supply service provider role to the Shire
(including assets), this legislation could continue to operate in the interim period while the
Administration and Shire are working towards this transfer. However, it would be appropriate for the
Shire to propose annual water charging rates and have the Administration exercise the ‘approval’ or
pricing control function for water charges, under existing legislation in the interim period.
In preparation for the complete separation of roles, as advocated in section 3, further review of the
latest Western Australian laws relating to the Water and Rivers Commission, the Water Corporation
and the Office of Water Regulation (pricing control) will be necessary. This will allow a proper
determination of the appropriate level of application of these legislative directions by the
Commonwealth in the IOT’s. With the addition of regulations, if necessary, to facilitate water
allocation and licensing, continued use of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI) and
the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI) would be appropriate under this scenario.
However, new legislation is required to establish the Shire as the water service utility, and for pricing
control over the setting of charges by the Shire.
It would seem practical to consider the administrative and legislative arrangements for water supply
in the Cocos (Keeling) Island Territory at the same time as the Christmas Island arrangements are
being altered. As mentioned earlier, an integrated approach would seem appropriate to the uniform
and coordinated progression of the national water reform agenda by the Commonwealth in all
External Territories.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

• Review current administrative requirements to manage the island's water resources
(allocation, monitoring and protection).
• Conduct discussions with the various lead agencies on the island to assess the optimal
arrangements.
• Consider other relevant Australian experiences in this process, particularly from the
external territories.
3.2 Broader Directions and Context

Important considerations under the terms of this consultancy relate to the national water reform
agenda being progressed by Commonwealth and State Governments in Australia, under the
umbrella of the COAG Strategic Framework for Water Reform (COAG, 1994). In large measure,
these policy reforms have been initiated by the Commonwealth in consultation with the States and
Territories, and therefore heighten the importance of implementation of the agreed reform agenda on
Christmas Island, where responsibility rests with the Commonwealth.
The reference document used for actions to implement the COAG Strategy was the September
1996 ARMCANZ Generic National Milestones (ARMCANZ, 1996). This document sets out
statements of intent and model milestones covering the core of the water policy Framework, as
committed to by COAG. The activities are in five broad groups:
• cost recovery and pricing;
• institutional reform with separation of water management roles;
• water allocation reform;
• environment protection and water quality with particular emphasis on allocation of water
for the environment; and
• public consultation and education.
This section of the report focuses on institutional reform and the issue of role separation. Water
pricing and cost recovery issues are addressed in section 7.8, while water allocation (including
provision for environmental needs) is covered in sections 7.3 and 7.5. Groundwater protection is
covered in section 8 and public consultation and education are covered under section 9.
3.3 Current Administrative Arrangements

Ownership and accountability for the Christmas Island water supply system are critical aspects in
consideration and assessment of the status of current assets on the Island. Accountability for the
state of repair and performance of the water supply system is very dispersed, extending from the
Shire of Christmas Island, through the Christmas Island Administration, and the Territories Offices in
both Perth and Canberra. The Administration promulgates water charges, while the Shire bills and
collects associated revenue.
The Shire, which is nominally the water supply authority does not exercise overall control of the
development and maintenance of water supply assets. Even if it were administratively and legally
possible to have the water supply business completely under its control, the Shire does not have the
necessary technical, human and financial resources to adequately undertake such carriage at the
present time.
Lack of title or ownership of the water supply asset, as well as lack of responsibility and control of
funds, leads to lack of commitment and accountability which in turn can be reflected in the loss of
integrity, current state of repair and high leakage from the water supply system.
The brief for this consultancy does not include assessment of the water supply distribution system
and storage facilities. However, of necessity, these aspects have been given a degree of
consideration. Elsewhere this report addresses the question of system losses, with the collection of
bulk supply data and consumer metering information confirming there has been a serious loss
situation. It has been suggested previously by the Consultants (refer ACTEW, 1997a; 1997b) that
the Shire requires an engineer with the appropriate skills to lead in the management of the water
supply system as well as other Shire service assets, for example wastewater and solid waste
management.
Importantly, the Shire is giving consideration to the need for introduction, and the nature of, a
complete asset management system. This too is critical to the long term upgrading and ongoing
operating efficiency of the system. The absence of such a system with respect to water supply is a
reflection of historical arrangements and the disbursement of responsibilities and accountabilities, as
well as the absence of commercial ‘drivers’ for the water supply business. This WMP identifies an
urgent need for a thorough water supply infrastructure assessment, including an ongoing leak
detection and control program. It is noted that during the period January – February 1999, leak
detection work identified significant system loss in the Drumsite area (Gugich, 1999). Further
funding will be required to respond to the outcomes of infrastructure assessment and ongoing leak
detection, in some logical, priority order.
3.4 Water Supply Authority Options for Christmas Island

It is considered necessary that the organisation responsible for management and protection of water
resources under this WMP, should be separate from the organisation responsible for development
and operation of the water supply system (refer Falkland, 1994).
As mentioned previously, the Commonwealth Government is setting the agenda with the States and
Territories on national competition policy and public utility industry reforms. In regard to the area of
reform relating to the separation of roles and responsibilities which is being actively progressed by
the states, separation of the functions of water service provision from those of water resource
management, policy and regulation, is the essence of this reform.
Obvious options for provision (separation) of the water service role on Christmas Island are:
1. combine the function with the present Christmas Island Power Authority (CIPA);
2. contract the WA Water Corporation to provide a remote community service;
3. set up an entirely separate water authority or even privatise the water supply function;
and
4. formally establish the Shire of Christmas Island as the water service utility.
The first option may have some attraction for commercial or business reasons but CIPA has no
specialist skills in the water field. Complete assessment of the status and value of the water supply
infrastructure would be necessary before any financial and transitional arrangements could be
determined, including the transfer of a range of duties and parts of the responsibilities of a number of
staff currently working with the Shire. The logistics of this option and the absence of any technical
water supply skills make the proposition unattractive.
In relation to the second option, it is believed that in the past the Water Corporation (formerly
Western Australian Water Authority) has not been attracted to the provision of water services in
remote island locations. More recently, however, it is understood that the Water Corporation has
been contracted for the water supply function on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It could be expected there
would be hesitation in an outside company’s willingness to undertake a water service provider
contract involving operation of the existing infrastructure and water business on Christmas Island, as
a ‘commercial’ proposition. In the longer term this situation would change if the water supply service
was developed on a commercial basis and the present supply system was improved so that losses
were reduced to an acceptable level.
While this option might lead to the application of a degree of appropriate technical skills to the water
supply system and asset management issues, other engineering elements of the remaining Shire
functions would not acquire these skills in the process.
Similar problems would exist with the third option to establish an entirely new and separate water
authority or to privatise the water supply function, at least in the short to medium term. With a small
community, there are some economies of scale in the one agency like the Shire acquiring basic
engineering skills for a range of functions, including water supply, wastewater and electricity, in the
form of professional and technical staff.
Turning to the fourth option, it is noted that the recent Christmas Island Utilities-Divestment and
Future Management Options study (WC/SMEC, 1998) recommends that the Shire be given
ownership and responsibility for utility services. As proposed previously (ACTEW, 1997b), it is
concluded that the Shire is the most appropriate agency to take up full water service provider
responsibilities. In the longer term, significant development and growth on the island could lead to
the situation where a separate water utility might be appropriate. However, at present this is
considered to be a remote possibility. Under the fourth option, the Commonwealth would rightly
retain responsibility for management, protection and allocation of groundwater, as well as regulation
of water prices.
3.5 Formal Transfer of Water Supply Function – Need for MOU

In the event that the fourth option above is pursued, the Shire needs to have its future clearly
identified with respect to the complete range of water supply responsibilities. Only in this way, will
there be some certainty and an identified need for it to ‘get the house in order’, pending the transfer of
full water supply business activities.
It is recognised that the range of legal and administrative arrangements required to achieve this are
not able to be put in place immediately. However, expeditious action to document and reach
agreement on the intended future arrangements is critical for planning this and making it happen. As
recommended by the Consultants in the second progress report (ACTEW, 1997b), an MOU
between the Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire would be a positive way of
documenting agreed directions and outcomes towards final allocation of roles and responsibilities.
The Administration expressed strong support for such an approach during the third visit to the island
in October 1998.
An MOU would document the agreed steps and outcomes required before complete transfer of the
water supply business is effected. In particular, the following aspects would need to be addressed:
• definition of scope and condition of all water supply assets;
• valuation of all water supply assets;
• nature, expected outcomes and funding of ongoing system leakage control program;
• system efficiency improvement goals;
• implementation of an asset management system;
• costing and programming of system refurbishment and repairs; and
• intended arrangements for the funding of such works and provision of associated
professional and technical human resources (e.g. engineering skills).
The value of water supply assets, refurbishment costs, and possible financial arrangements
surrounding future refurbishment are outside the scope of this project. However, agreement is
necessary between the Commonwealth and the Shire on the financial basis of takeover
arrangements; for example, to what extent will the Commonwealth continue to fund system
refurbishment prior to and after the MOU/transfer period - for how long and to what extent. Answers
to these questions will be difficult, and even more difficult without data and information from a fully
operative water supply asset management system.
The MOU should:
• establish the agreed approach to the setting of the annual deficit and Commonwealth
subsidy levels for water supply (under community service obligation or CSO), including
targets for reduction of the CSO as consumption based pricing and system
refurbishment initiatives take effect;
• identify the proposed Administration approach to future groundwater protection
responsibilities (e.g. monitoring sustainable use of source water and the seeking of
periodic technical advice). In this respect, the approach used in the Cocos (Keeling)
Islands could be adopted, whereby quarterly monitoring reports are prepared for the
Cocos Islands Administration based on monitoring data collected by the water supply
operator;
• flag the future approach to bulk water extraction licensing and likely conditions applying,
for example:
- environmental flow provisions and management arrangements;
- water use efficiency responsibilities; and
- demand management programs.
• initiate the necessary changes to legislation required to administer the new regime at the
end of this MOU period, for example:
- water utility legislation; and
- pricing regulation.
In all of these considerations, a critical element that needs to be identified for each of the steps
involved is timing. Overall, it is suggested a timeframe of two to three years should be targeted to
complete all the arrangements and effect the full transfer of responsibility. However, in relation to
water pricing, it is considered that the introduction of user-pays charging mechanisms should
commence much sooner - say by the year 2000 - using existing regulations to set charges during
the MOU period.
4. GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

• Conduct a drilling and testing program (GIM1) to investigate:
- the location and yields of fresh groundwater in both the perched groundwater in the
high level volcanic rock, and the basal groundwater body underlying the island, and
- potential present and future sources in the vicinity of existing and proposed landfill
sites to detect and monitor potential pollution.
• Conduct the following specific studies:
- recharge analysis (GIM2);
- use of satellite imagery to locate freshwater flows (GIM3);
- development of a rainfall-flow model for springs and Jedda Cave (GIM4);
- development of an aquifer classification and vulnerability map (GIM5);
- prepare a monitoring program for water resources and water supply (GIM6); and
- prepare a processing, archiving, analysis and reporting program and procedure for
water resources and water supply data (also GIM6).
4.2 Introduction
The groundwater investigations and monitoring (GIM) program was an integral part of the overall
WMP development process.
This section provides a brief summary of the GIM program. Full details of the program are presented
in the accompanying Groundwater Investigations and Monitoring Report (ACTEW, 1999). The
findings from the investigations and information gained from the monitoring have been used, as
appropriate, in other parts of this Plan.
4.3 Drilling and Testing Program

A network of 8 boreholes for water resources monitoring and 3 boreholes for pollution monitoring at
the current rubbish disposal landfill site were drilled in late 1996. While the drilling rig was on the
island, an additional 2 boreholes were drilled for potential stormwater disposal.
4.3.1 Water resources monitoring boreholes

Five of the water resources monitoring boreholes, denoted BH1 to BH5, are located in the Smithson
Bight area. This area was considered to have the greatest potential for the occurrence of fresh
groundwater. The other three boreholes, denoted BH6 to BH8, are located in the north-eastern area
of the island. This general location was seen as having a lower but nevertheless a moderate
potential for fresh groundwater than the Smithson Bight area. The north-eastern area of the island is
considerably closer to settlement areas and, hence, if groundwater could be found there, it would be
cheaper to develop than the Smithson Bight area.
All of the water resources monitoring boreholes, except one (BH3), consist of a set of between 3 and
5 monitoring tubes (25 mm PVC). These tubes are terminated at different depths and hydraulically
isolated from each other by means of bentonite seals between the tube ends. The purpose of having
multiple tubes in each borehole is to enable the groundwater to be tested at a number of levels, thus
allowing the relationship between depth below water table and salinity to be established at each
monitoring visit.
Since installation of the boreholes in late 1996, monitoring of water level and salinity has been
undertaken by Shire staff on a periodic basis. Depth to the water table is measured with a water
level ‘dipper’. This enables the water level to be obtained in each tube from a known level at the top
of the borehole. The salinity (electrical conductivity or EC) of the water in each tube is measured
with a portable EC meter using small samples obtained with a bailer.
The monitoring boreholes in the Smithson Bight area intersect basal groundwater, while those in the
north-eastern area of the island found perched groundwater in relatively small quantities.
A summary of freshwater conditions is provided for each of the eight boreholes in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of conditions at water resources monitoring boreholes
Borehole Distance from

Freshwater conditions & potential for groundwater extraction
Number coastline (m)
Smithson Bight area (basal groundwater)

BH1 1,400 Freshwater zone approx. 20 m thick. High potential. Good access.
BH2 850 Freshwater zone at least 19 m thick. High potential. Difficult access.
BH3 450 No freshwater zone. Potential nil.
BH4 1,250 Freshwater zone at least 24 m thick. High potential. Good access.
BH5 650 No freshwater zone. Nil potential.
North eastern area (perched groundwater)
BH6 750 Small quantity of freshwater. Low potential.
BH7 1,000 Small quantity of freshwater; higher salinity than BH6. Low potential.
BH8 850 Substantial quantity of freshwater. Moderate potential. Would require
further exploratory drilling and pump testing to confirm potential.
The area of the island immediately north of Smithson Bight offers good potential for the development
of fresh groundwater. If production holes are drilled, they should be located at distances of 1,000 m
or more from the coastline and pumped at rates 3-5 L/s per borehole. It may be possible to alter
these rates after a period of monitoring of the salinity response within the groundwater, as measured
at salinity monitoring boreholes. A salinity monitoring borehole should be drilled close to each
production borehole.
Perched groundwater was found in the drilling investigations as part of this project in the north east
part of the island at boreholes BH6, BH7 and BH8. Volcanic rock was intersected above sea level
(13 m, 40 m and 97 m, respectively, for BH6, BH7 and BH8). Based on monitoring of water levels in
the monitoring tubes at each borehole, only BH8 is considered to have potential for moderate yields
(possibly 1-2 L/s). Further exploratory drilling and pump testing in the area of BH8 would be required
to confirm this. No pump testing was planned nor conducted as part of the current investigations.
Comparing the north eastern area with the Smithson Bight area, the former has the advantages of
less depth to groundwater (approx. 50-100 m compared with approx. 150 m) and proximity to
present and likely demand centres. The Smithson Bight area has the advantages of larger yield per
borehole, greater ability to cope with extended droughts and being further from present pollution
sources. On balance, it is concluded that the Smithson Bight area is better for future groundwater
development than the north eastern area. The north eastern area, in the vicinity of BH8 should be
further investigated, however, if a drilling rig is brought to the island to undertake drilling work at
Smithson Bight.
4.3.2 Pollution monitoring boreholes

Three monitoring holes (BH9, BH10 and BH11) were drilled around the edge of the present rubbish
disposal area. Each borehole is cased with 50 mm PVC pipe, which is screened over the terminal
6 m. Only two, BH9 and BH10, penetrate to the volcanic rock, at depths of 91.7 m and 108.8 m,
respectively. These two holes have consistently shown a water table, indicative of a perched
groundwater system.
Measurements of salinity at both boreholes indicate generally similar values to those from other
perched groundwater sites on the island (e.g. Waterfall, Jedda).
Two sets of water quality tests for a range of potential pollutants (hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCBs,
nutrients and heavy metals) were obtained from boreholes BH9 and BH10 in mid-1998. In one set of
tests, an additional sample was obtained from Jedda Cave. No sign of pollution was found except
for a value of lead at twice the Guideline value in borehole BH10. A retest should be obtained to
ascertain if this level persists.
Samples obtained from Jedda Cave, Waterfall Spring and the Ross Hill Gardens pump station in
October 1998 were tested for a range of heavy metals, including lead and arsenic, and were found to
have levels below the test level of determination.
An ongoing monitoring program is required for potential chemical pollution at the monitoring
4.4 Groundwater Recharge Assessment

An assessment of recharge to groundwater from rainfall is a necessary part of normal groundwater
investigations, and is necessary in order to estimate sustainable yields of groundwater systems.
Such an assessment provides knowledge of the input to the island groundwater system and, through
this, can provide an upper limit to the amount that can be developed in a sustainable manner.
For small islands, such as Christmas Island, where significant quantities of the fresh groundwater
are in contact with seawater, only a fraction of recharge can be safely extracted. Some of the
recharge is required to maintain the integrity of the freshwater zone by flushing salts from the base of
the freshwater zone. If all the recharge was extracted, such aquifers would eventually diminish until
no freshwater was available. A previous estimate of recharge for the island was 30% of rainfall
(Falkland, 1986). This was based only on a comparison with some other islands.
Recharge to groundwater over the island was estimated in this project using a water balance
procedure. The water balance used daily rainfall records, estimates of evaporation based on
available evaporation pan data and estimates of relevant soil and vegetation properties.
The estimated average annual recharge for Christmas Island is 50% of average annual rainfall,
which is approximately 2,000 mm. The average annual recharge is thus about 1,000 mm. Over the
area of the island where recharge can effectively add to the freshwater reserves, the annual
recharge is equivalent to approximately 100 gigalitres (or 3,200 L/s).
The proportion of recharge that can be safely extracted (or sustainable yield) is based on many
factors including the distribution of the groundwater on the island and the method(s) of groundwater
extraction. Other small island studies (e.g. UNESCO, 1991) have indicated that approximately 25%
to 50% of recharge to basal aquifers (or freshwater lenses) can be safely extracted. For the perched
aquifers, where there is no contact with sea, the maximum amount that could be extracted would be
100% of recharge. In practice, much less than this percentage would be capable of being extracted
because of the complexity of the geology and the efficiency of borehole pumping systems. It would
be unlikely that more than 50% could be easily extracted. For different reasons, the estimated upper
limit of sustainable yield for both basal and perched aquifers would be 50% of recharge.
Using 50% of recharge as being a reasonable estimate of sustainable yield for Christmas Island, the
maximum amount of water available for extraction would be 50 gigalitres per year, or 1,600 L/s. By
comparison, the average combined flow of the presently developed water sources is about 80 L/s or
5% of this value. The estimated minimum combined flows of the presently developed sources is
about 31 L/s (Falkland, 1986) or only 2% of this value.
4.5 Satellite Imagery Study for Coastal Outflows

A Landsat satellite image with low cloud cover was acquired and examined for evidence of
freshwater emerging from the Christmas Island coastline into the surrounding ocean.
Details of the analysis and selected images are contained in a separate report by the sub-
consultants engaged for this component of the project (refer Webb and Shepherd, 1997).
The selected image produced no discernible evidence of emerging freshwater. This was attributed
to :
• The rapid descent of the waters around Christmas Island to open ocean depths,
combined with minimal surface runoff, resulting in very clear surrounding waters, which
provide little colour contrast to emerging freshwater; and
• Mixing of ocean waters with emergent freshwater to a degree where surface
temperatures varied by no more than 0.5°C, the threshold of detection for the thermal
band of the Landsat satellite.
As part of this study, surface sea temperature and salinity readings were obtained at selected
locations near known cave entrances (Daniel Roux Cave and nearby Grimes Cave, Freshwater
Cave and Lost Lake Cave) along the northern coastline of the island during the October/November
1996 visit. These readings showed no discernible variations in salinity or temperature from open
water values (200 m from the coastline). This lack of any freshwater ‘signature’ is no doubt due
largely to mixing of freshwater with seawater within the cave before it emerges. This observation is
supported by measurements within the Daniel Roux cave system.
In conclusion, the pilot study indicated that Landsat satellite imagery was not successful at locating
freshwater outflows along the coastline. Imagery obtained with sensors (on satellite or aeroplane)
having a thermal resolution of better than 0.1°C may be more useful. However, this method appears
to be of limited use, as the mixing of freshwater and seawater within the caves and fissures along
the coastline results in outflows which are already quite diffuse even where freshwater outflows are
known to occur.
4.6 Rainfall-flow model for springs & Jedda Cave

For Jedda Cave, a simple formula was derived to predict flows for a given month based on the
previous 5 months rainfall recorded at the Jedda raingauge. This could be applied only in low flow
periods when the flow is between about 50 and 20 L/s, and the 5 month rainfall is less than about
250 mm.
Based on analysis of lows in 1997 and 1998, the flow response in Jedda Cave is lagged between 2
and 3 months behind Jedda rainfall.
A more complex (non-linear) model was developed for Jedda for higher flow periods. This model
can estimate the current month’s flow from the average of monthly rainfall for the previous 2 months
and the average monthly flow at Jedda for preceding month. This model should be used with caution
as it can under-estimate or over-estimate actual flows and should be refined as more data becomes
available in the future.
Predicted flows from these models should be checked against future monitored flows at Jedda and
the results reported in the proposed quarterly monitoring reports. Suggested modifications should
be recommended.
In the future, similar models could be developed for the springs at and near Waterfall and for those at
Ross Hill Gardens. The Waterfall springs will firstly require the installation of flow monitoring
equipment and collection of data over at least 12 months.
4.7 Aquifer Classification and Vulnerability

4.7.1 Aquifer classification
A map showing a simple classification of the island’s groundwater into perched and basal aquifers
prepared from existing knowledge of the island’s geology and hydrogeology is shown in Figure 2. It
is noted that this map should be considered preliminary as much of the data has been inferred.
Some features of the island’s’ hydrogeology which have led to the delineation of perched and basal
aquifers are as follows:
• There is a known basal aquifer in the Smithson Bight area and this aquifer extends inland
at least to the contact between limestone and volcanic rock. The east-west limits of this
aquifer are not known but are presumed to extend in an easterly direction across the
southern arm of Christmas Island towards South Point, and in a westerly direction to the
western coastline to the south of the Dales. In support of the adopted mapping, there
was no evidence of any springs or volcanic rock outcrops on the peninsular leading to
South Point and Egeria Point (south west tip of the island).
• Freshwater outflows are known to exist along the northern coastline at sea level and
there are no known springs occurring on basalt along this coastline.
• Boreholes BH12 in Poon Saan and BH13 in Silver City were drilled below mean sea level
(MSL) without intersecting volcanic rock and the water levels indicate basal aquifer
conditions.
• The area near Grotto and Runaway Cave in the north eastern part of the island, is in
direct connection with the sea.
• Areas along the eastern coastline which show volcanic rock and water tables or outflows
above MSL, indicating perched aquifer conditions, are:
- Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones Springs in the north eastern part of the island,
- Boreholes BH6, BH7 and BH8 also in the north eastern part of the island,
- Hosnies Spring,
- The Ross Hill Gardens Springs (Harrison’s Nos 1 and 2, Hewan’s and Hudson’s),
- Dolly Beach streams, and
- the Ravine (stream).
• Evidence of perched groundwater in the central part of the island including:
- boreholes BH9 and BH10 near the current rubbish disposal and landfill area,
- the Grant’s Well, Jedda, Jane Up and WB30 flow system, and
- numerous water bores in the Grant’s Well, Jedda, Jane Up area.
• Evidence of perched groundwater in the western part of the island in the area of the
Dales.
On the basis of boreholes in Smithson Bight, and some knowledge of the groundwater conditions
within Daniel Roux Cave, it is assumed that the basal groundwater within 500 m of the coastline has
higher salinity than acceptable for freshwater. The water in this zone is likely to have salinities
varying from slightly brackish to almost seawater, due to mixing with seawater, depending on the
distance from the coastline and the preceding rainfall conditions. This zone is marked as a shaded
strip around the island’s perimeter (refer Figure 2). It is narrower in areas where the volcanic rock is
known to come close to the island’s perimeter.
The actual distance from the coastline at which basal groundwater becomes fresh may vary
according to local differences in permeability, especially if volcanic rock is present below sea level
near the coastline (e.g. parts of the eastern and western coastlines). The distance will also vary
according to wet and dry seasons with the line advancing closer to the coastline during or after wet
periods, and away from the coastline during dry periods. However, it is considered that as an
approximate guide, no basal groundwater should be developed by pumping within 500 m of the
coastline because there is a strong possibility that this groundwater would be brackish in extended
dry periods, and even if it was not, the action of pumping is likely to induce seawater intrusion.
The area of most uncertainty in the map (Figure 2) is the exact delineation between perched and
basal groundwater. It is further noted that there may be a multi- layer aquifer system under the areas
marked as perched aquifer in Figure 2. For instance it is quite possible, although unproven that the
basal aquifer extends underneath the area marked as being perched aquifer. This would imply a
differential permeability in the volcanic rock with depth under the island, whereby the perched aquifer
would be above a low permeability layer of volcanic rock. Underlying this would be a higher
permeability volcanic sequence allowing freshwater to accumulate above seawater. Recharge to
the basal aquifer could be through discrete fractures in certain sections of the largely perched aquifer
area.
The aquifer classification map may be useful at identifying possible future locations for development
of groundwater in basal aquifers. The map should be used with caution due to the uncertainties
associated with it.
4.7.2 Vulnerability map

The groundwater resources of Christmas Island are rated as having a high to very high vulnerability
to contamination (refer Figure 3). These ratings were based on the DRASTIC system (Aller et al,
1987) which has been commonly used for groundwater vulnerability assessment (for example, the
mapping of groundwater vulnerability in the Perth basin: Appleyard, 1993).
The areas of high and very high vulnerability for Christmas Island correspond approximately to basal
and perched groundwater aquifers.
Strict controls over potential pollution sources, particularly waste disposal sites, are absolutely
essential. In particular, planning procedures should take account of the vulnerability of groundwater
when siting waste disposal areas, urban areas with associated sewerage and stormwater systems
and other potential sources of pollution. It is recommended that a ‘zero discharge’ policy is the most
appropriate for all potential pollutants over the whole island.
4.8 Water Monitoring Program

4.8.1 During the project
A water monitoring program was developed during the course of preparation of this WMP. This was
to enable vital water resources information to be collected at key sites, including some of the
presently developed sources and some potential sources. These sites were Jedda cave, Ross Hill
Gardens Springs, Daniel Roux Cave and the water resources monitoring boreholes installed during
the project.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to establish monitoring systems at the very important sites of
Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones Springs.
In addition to the water resources monitoring sites, flow meters were installed at key sites on major
pipelines, particularly at all sources (Jedda, Jane Up, Ross Hill Gardens and Waterfall).
Details of the data obtained from the monitoring sites are contained in the accompanying GIM Report
(ACTEW, 1999) and are summarised in the Executive Summary to that report.
Water quality information was obtained at water resources sites and pollution monitoring boreholes,
and a program for ongoing monitoring has been prepared.
Training was provided to two staff from the Shire during the course of the project.
Data processing and analysis was undertaken by Ecowise Environmental, primarily Tony Falkland.
The results of analysis have been regularly reported to the Shire staff throughout the course of the
project.
4.8.2 Ongoing monitoring program

It is essential to continue the above-mentioned water monitoring program established during
development of this WMP; as a long term activity for the rational assessment, development and
management of the island’s water resources.
Figure 2 Christmas Island aquifer classification map

Figure 3 Christmas Island aquifer vulnerability map

A number of adjustments were made to the monitoring program during the course of the project and
the most recent version of the required monitoring program is provided in section 7.7 and Annex S of
the accompanying GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999). A copy of this has been forwarded to the Shire for
action.
The current procedure for data processing, analysis and storage should be used. In the foreseeable
future, this requires data to be forwarded on a regular basis to an external agency (currently Ecowise
Environmental) for these tasks to be undertaken.
It is recommended that a formal reporting system be established whereby quarterly reports are
prepared by the external agency and submitted to the agency responsible for water resources
management on the island. This would be similar to procedures already implemented in the Cocos
(Keeling) Islands.
The monitoring reports should be prepared at the end of March, June, September and December
using data for the previous quarter. These monitoring reports should provide an analysis and
summary of the previous period’s data, provide an assessment of the general status of the water
resources and highlight any necessary corrective action. The December report should be an annual
report and provide a summary of all data for the year making recommendations about any necessary
modifications to the monitoring program in the light of possible changed circumstances.
This reporting system not only enables essential feedback to the island authorities about the status
and sustainable development (use) of water resources but it also provides an opportunity to give
more detailed advice on specific water resource issues as they arise.
At some stage in the future, it may be possible to transfer some of the water resources analysis
function to the appropriate agency on the island.
4.8.3 Costs for ongoing monitoring

Costs for the ongoing monitoring program can be divided into 3 categories as follows:
• Category 1: Costs associated with data collection and initial processing on Christmas
Island (currently undertaken by staff of the Works and Services section of the Shire of
Christmas Island)
• Category 2: Costs associated with data analysis and reporting (undertaken for this
report by Ecowise Environmental)
• Category 3: Costs of equipment repairs and periodic replacement.
Costs associated with data collection and initial processing of data on Christmas Island are not
included in this report. Information has been requested from the Shire but was not available in time
for this report.
The estimated costs for data analysis and reporting to relevant authorities on the island by an
appropriate external agency are $15,000 per year. These costs would include $2,500 each for three
short quarterly reports (end of March, June and September), $5,000 for a longer annual report (end
of December) and up to $1,000 for ad hoc advice during the year. This is a similar arrangement to
that currently used for water resources and water supply monitoring in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
It is recommended that the consultant make a visit to the island at two year intervals to check
equipment at each site, and to discuss monitoring arrangements with the water monitoring agency.
The estimated cost of a one week visit for this work is approximately $7,000. Thus, the average
costs per year, including monitoring visit costs, would be approximately $18,500.
Details of estimated costs and replacement timetables for major monitoring equipment items are
shown in the GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999). The annual average cost is $3,500.
The current computer is at the end of its useful life and has been experiencing problems with the
screen. It is recommended that a new portable computer be purchased in the near future, at an
estimated cost of $3,000.
The average annual costs for two of the three categories are:
• Category 2: (data analysis and reporting): $18,500
• Category 3: (equipment repairs and periodic replacement): $3,500
• Total $22,000
Costs for Category 1 (data collection and initial processing) can be obtained from the Shire.
5. GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Groundwater quality standards will be specified for different classes of, or uses for, water (e.g.
drinking, industrial, ecological). Consideration of relevant Australian standards will be made in the
context of local conditions and constraints.
5.2 Classes of Water

Classes of water can be set to meet different user needs. The most important is water of suitable
quality for drinking by humans. In summary, classes can be set for the following uses:
• Drinking (potable), and
• Other (e.g. industrial, toilet flushing, fire fighting, and ecological needs).
These are considered below.
5.3 Water for Drinking Purposes

Drinking (potable) water should meet the requirements of Australian Drinking Water Guidelines
(NHMRC/ARMCANZ, 1996). These Guidelines provide maximum values for a range of chemical,
physical, biological and other parameters to meet health and aesthetic objectives. Two of the most
important parameters are those that describe the salinity and hardness of the water. A detailed
analysis of results is provided in section 7.5 of the GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999).
5.3.1 Salinity
The salinity of the present (Jedda, Jane Up, Waterfall and Ross Hill Gardens) and former (Grant’s
Well) water sources are well within the guideline values. These sources are all from perched
groundwater. Other perched groundwater, for example a number of the monitoring boreholes and
the Daniel Roux Cave gusher show similar results. Basal groundwater, above the transition zone
with seawater, also shows similar results, as shown in the upper monitoring tubes in Smithson Bight
area monitoring holes.
In order to estimate the extent of the freshwater resource in a coastal aquifer/freshwater lens
situation, it is necessary to define a maximum salinity (EC) value for freshwater. From previous
work in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (e.g. Falkland, 1992; Pink & Falkland, 1999) an EC value of
2,500 µS/cm was used as a maximum limit for freshwater based on its approximate equivalence
with a chloride ion concentration of 600 mg/L. A desirable upper limit of 1,500 µS/cm was also
defined for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands which is approximately equivalent to the drinking water
guideline value of 250 mg/L for chloride ion (NHMRC/ARMCANZ, 1996). For Christmas Island, it is
recommended that 1,500 µS/cm be used as an upper limit and a desirable objective be defined as
1,000 µS/cm. This is based largely on a comparison with the salinity of the water supply from
current sources which is approximately 500-600 µS/cm. It could reasonably be argued that as the
population has become used to a salinity value at this level and as the water resources of Christmas
Island are more extensive than in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, a 1,000 µS/cm upper limit should be
adopted.
5.3.2 Hardness
It is well known that Christmas Island water is hard and scale forms on heater elements (e.g. electric
kettles and hot water systems). It also causes scaling in pipes and can lead to leaking taps due to
some scaling of washers. Results of water quality tests confirm that the hardness levels are
moderately high and that scaling is correspondingly a moderate problem.
5.3.3 Other physical and chemical quality parameters

Other physical and chemical quality parameters (e.g. pH, turbidity and conductivity/total dissolved
salts and common specific ions) all meet guideline values.
it flows. In the future, it is recommended that representative samples be obtained from selected
Smithson Bight monitoring boreholes and tested for a range of parameters. This should become
part of an annual water monitoring component.
5.3.4 Chemical pollutants

Samples tested for pollutants (hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCBs, nutrients and heavy metals) in mid
1998 from two monitoring boreholes at the rubbish disposal/landfill site and Jedda Cave showed no
sign of pollution except for a higher than guideline value for lead at BH10. The test result showed
19 µg/L compared with the Australian Drinking Water Guideline (NHMRC/ARMCANZ, 1996) value,
based on health considerations, of 10 µg/L. The lead level at Jedda cave was below the test’s limit
of determination.
Samples were collected from four sites in October 1998 and these were tested for a range of heavy
metals. The sites were Jedda Cave, Waterfall Spring, the Ross Hill Gardens pump station
(comprising a mixture of water from Harrison’s Springs and Hewan’s Spring) and the Daniel Roux
Cave gusher. All samples showed low levels of these constituents. In particular, the levels of lead
and arsenic were low (below level of determination).
An ongoing monitoring program is required for potential chemical pollution at the monitoring
5.3.5 Microbiology
Data from microbiological tests (total coliforms, E. Coli and total plate count and sometimes for
faecal streptococci) for the period 1988-1996 were reviewed. These tests were conducted on water
samples collected from the distribution system after chlorination. Based on available test results
stored at the Hospital, the microbiological quality of the water is generally good. However, there were
some samples showing positive counts for all parameters. In particular, occasional samples
level of E. Coli, these were obviously some non-acceptable results. As the microbiological quality of
water supply can directly impact on public health, it is essential that the water delivered to
consumers continues to be disinfected. The chlorination systems at Jedda and Waterfall need to be
properly operated and maintained and regular chlorine residual tests need to be continued.
5.4 Water for other purposes

The quality of water for other purposes, as identified in section 5.2, does not necessarily have to be
as stringent as that for drinking water. For instance, a lower class of water in terms of chemical and
biological criteria would be acceptable for some industrial purposes, for toilet flushing and for
firefighting.
The concept of having two or more classes of water for use on the island would require two or more
production, storage and distribution systems. In some islands, especially where freshwater
resources are very scarce (e.g. the atolls of Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati and Majuro, Republic of the
Marshall Islands), dual systems are used to supply potable water and seawater. Seawater is used
for toilet flushing and fire fighting. Alternatively, brackish groundwater could be used. For these
systems, it is also not essential that bacteriological levels be low.
For Christmas Island, at least in the foreseeable future, there is no need to consider dual water
systems for general use. This is because there are ample freshwater resources, both presently
developed or able to be developed, to meet foreseeable water demands. However, at some time in
the future, it may be necessary to consider the use of dual systems at least for some purposes.
At present, while there are extra costs associated with chlorination of all water, most of which is not
used for potable purposes, there is no simple solution for separating chlorinated water from non-
chlorinated water to meet different needs. For future water uses (e.g. water for development at
South Point), there is scope for pumping ‘raw’ water, either from Jedda or from possible production
boreholes in the Smithson Bight area. This could be separated into storages for potable and non-
potable needs. Only the potable storages would need to be chlorinated, or perhaps disinfected by
some other means.
If rainwater tanks are introduced at some time in the future, then the issue of water quality could be
left to individual householders. To control the biological quality, various filters are available and
boiling of water can kill harmful pathogenic organisms. For public health reasons, however, a water
quality testing service may be necessary for rainwater tank samples, perhaps on a fee for service
basis.
The water available at various surface sources on the island is sufficient for ecological needs (e.g.
birds and crabs). The main issue is not one of water quality but water quantity. As mentioned
elsewhere in this Plan (refer section 7.5), sufficient overflows should be allowed at spring sources,
for environmental flow requirements. This matter requires additional and ongoing input by relevant
personnel (e.g. Parks Australia, the Environment Officer) to determine reasonable environmental
flow needs.
6. GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

Assess groundwater development options for future water supply needs on the island.
6.2 Presently Developed Sources

6.2.1 Outline
The existing developed sources, used for water supply purposes on the island, provide ample supply
for current population levels and environmental needs. The primary developed sources are:
• Jedda (underground stream), and
• Waterfall (fed by three separate springs, namely, Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones
Springs).
Other less-used, or secondary, existing sources are:
• Jane Up (underground stream, further ‘downstream’ from Jedda); and
• Ross Hill Gardens (fed by Hewan’s and Harrison’s (Nos 1 and 2) Springs).
Water from these sources should be maximised and utilised in a sustainable manner, in accordance
with national objectives being pursued in the water industry (refer section 7.8.1), before any
consideration is given to further infrastructure investment to develop new sources. In order to
maximise the supply from the primary sources, there is a definite and recognised need to undertake
an effective ongoing water supply system leakage control program (refer section 7.8.4).
6.2.2 Possible threats to flow and water quality

There are some threats to the current sources, most notably contamination from potential pollution
sources. Another threat is the loss of supply due to alteration(s) in the flow regime of these sources
due to geological processes (e.g. sudden geological movements causing fractures in volcanic rocks,
cave collapses or the gradual dissolution of limestone over time). Of these threats, pollution is
probably the greatest but this can be effectively controlled by proper land planning and management,
and well planned and managed sewerage and solid waste disposal systems.
A cave collapse could affect access to the Jedda flow but is unlikely to block the flow path. (Baynes
Geologic (1999) assessed the risk of a cave collapse in the near future as low. A geotechnical
hazard assessment by Coffey (1998) listed rock falls as one of the hazards in Jedda Cave amongst
others, but gave no specific assessment of the likelihood of such events. Cave collapses have
obviously occurred in the past in Jedda cave and other caves on the island (e.g. Daniel Roux cave in
January 1978: Barrett, 1985).
If a major cave collapse occurred at Jedda then the water would most probably still be available at
this site, but modifications to the intakes may be required. It is also possible to pump the water
passing through Jedda Cave from the Jane Up collector well, as both locations are on the same flow
system. However, temporary disruption to water supply may be caused due to the need for remedial
intake works. During this period, water could be made available on a continuous basis from Jane-
Up, Ross Hill Gardens and Waterfall.
The gradual dissolution of limestone is unlikely to be a problem to currently developed water
sources, which all flow along the contact between limestone and underlying volcanic rock.
6.3 Options for Increasing Water Supply

Feasible options involving improvements to existing groundwater collection or the development of
new groundwater sources are:
• Improve the collection of spring flows at Waterfall Spring;
• Improve the collection of spring flows at Freshwater and Jones Spring;
• Install a network of production boreholes in the Smithson Bight area;

• Construct pump and pipe system within Daniel Roux Cave to collect the water from the
‘gusher’ at the rear of the cave;
• Construct pumping stations to pump from other spring sources (e.g. Dolly Beach,
Dales).
Other options for increasing the supply of freshwater that do not involve additional groundwater
source development include:
• Demand management including leakage control in the current distribution system;
• Increase the collection of rainwater, especially at the residential scale; and
• Desalination of brackish water or seawater.
Consideration of options such as rainwater collection and desalination is strictly beyond the
requirements of the WMP Project Brief, but they are discussed briefly in this section, so as to put all
feasible options in perspective.
Section 6.4 below deals with the groundwater development options, section 6.5 considers demand
management and section 6.6 considers the other water supply options of rainwater collection and
desalination.
6.4 Analysis of Groundwater Development Options

6.4.1 Improve Waterfall Spring collection system
The Waterfall Spring collection system was modified as part of the construction of the CIR
casino/hotel project. The modifications included a collection pipe system and a central collection
chamber (2 m diameter concrete cylinder) for diverting the water to the storage tank further downhill.
An overflow system was incorporated. As mentioned in ACTEW (1996b), it is considered that
further works are necessary at the Waterfall Spring to improve the collection of flows from the spring
to the collection chamber. This can most effectively be done by extending the collection pipe system
along the area where the spring emanates from the rock. At present, much of the flow appears to be
by-passing the chamber on the southern side.
As the area is consistently overgrown it is difficult to determine the extent of works that are possible.
Every effort should be made to maximise the flow from the spring. The collection pipe system
should consist of a slotted pipe (up to 225 mm diameter) at the base of a gravel bed approximately
0.5-1.0 m deep. The top should be covered with thick polythene sheeting and possibly covered with
a thin layer of concrete. Decisions on some aspects of the spring improvement works would need
to be made after clearing the vegetation and digging to the spring source. At no stage should
explosives be used as these may alter the flow direction and capacity of the spring. For instance,
the diameter of the collection pipes and the number of slots should be determined after viewing the
site and measuring or estimating the spring’s flow rate.
The entry of the pipes into the collection chamber should be well sealed to avoid any leakage. The
collection chamber should be fitted with an overflow pipe with large enough capacity to handle the full
flow of the spring, for times when no water is flowing to the storage tank, This should be equipped
with either a flow meter or the flow directed to a downhill chamber where an overflow weir can be
installed for flow measurement (either manual or automatic). Exact design details are beyond the
scope of this report and would need to be the subject of an investigation once clearing and digging
around the spring has been undertaken.
It is estimated that at least a further 2-5 L/s of flow could be collected than at present by improving
the collection system.
An indicative cost estimate for the spring improvement works including a monitoring system is
$30,000.
6.4.2 Improve Freshwater and Jones Spring collection systems

Recommended improvements for these springs were documented in Christmas Island (Indian
Ocean) Water Source Improvements Planning and Design Report, June 1997 (ACTEW, 1997a).
The improvements are likely to increase the flows by about 1-2 L/s at each spring, or a total of about
2-4 L/s.
Indicative cost estimates for these spring improvement works is $20,000 at Freshwater Spring and
$30,000 at Jones Spring. These cost estimates are based on figures provided in Works Australia
(1997). Additional costs to replace gravity pipelines from the springs, to install flow meters and
undertake other minor works are estimated to be in the order of $50,000. The total indicative cost of
improvements is thus about $80,000.
6.4.3 Smithson Bight borehole network

Groundwater development in the Smithson Bight area is considered feasible based on the results of
the drilling and monitoring work undertaken as part of the GIM Program (refer section 2.1 in ACTEW,
1999).
Groundwater development in this area would best be implemented by drilling a network of
‘production’ boreholes, preferably in a line parallel to the coastline. The boreholes should be located
at least 1,000 m from the coastline so as to drill into deeper freshwater zones of this apparently
substantial basal aquifer. Boreholes should be spaced approximately 300 m apart with the first
located near monitoring borehole BH1, and extending towards monitoring BH4. Approximately 6-7
production boreholes could be drilled between these two monitoring boreholes.
The depth of the production holes would be about 160 m, based on the approximate depth to the
water table of 155-165 m in the nominated area. The depths to the water table at BH1 and BH2 are
approximately 155 m and 165 m, respectively. Based on available monitoring and survey data, the
average height of the water table above MSL is approximately 1 m. The production holes should be
drilled to approximately 2 m below MSL, or 3 m below average water table. This would ensure that,
firstly, water is available for pumping and, secondly, seawater intrusion is not enhanced; which would
be the case if the holes were drilled deeper.
There is no drilling rig capable of drilling such holes on the island. Hence, it would be necessary to
ship a suitable drilling rig to undertake the drilling program. If additional water supply is required to
meet increased demand, it would be advisable to drill at least 5 production boreholes during the
drilling program, so as to make effective use of a drilling rig shipped to the island. At the same time,
it is recommended that a multi-level monitoring borehole should be drilled within 10 m of each
production borehole. This will enable the impact of pumping on the aquifer to be monitored, and
facilitate possible future modification of pumping rates on the basis of monitoring data. It may be
possible, for instance, to increase the pumping rate at least from some of the boreholes.
The estimated sustainable pumping rate for each hole is 3-5 L/s. While the aquifer would most
probably be capable of being pumped at higher rates, there is the potential for seawater intrusion if
the pump rate is too high. This may take months or even years to become apparent, and hence it is
recommended that a conservative approach be initially adopted. If 5 production holes were drilled
and fitted with 3-5 L/s pumps, the total pumping capacity would be 15-25 L/s.
Further drilling of boreholes could probably be undertaken in the Smithson Bight area by drilling to the
west of BH1 or the east of BH4. Based on the groundwater resources map of the island (refer
section 6 of ACTEW, 1999), it would be advisable to drill at least one monitoring borehole to the west
of BH1 and to the southeast of BH4 at the time of the first phase of drilling. This would assist with
decisions about future groundwater development.
In addition, two investigation holes should be drilled between BN1 and WB30, south-west of Jane Up,
to further assess the basal groundwater potential in that area, as outlined in section 2.1 of the GIM
Report (ACTEW, 1999) . This drilling should be done at the same time as possible future production
and monitoring borehole drilling. If hard volcanic rock is intersected in either or both of these
boreholes then the drilling can cease. The water level conditions should be checked after drilling to
assess the potential for future pumping from either a perched or basal aquifer.
An indicative cost of drilling production and monitoring boreholes (capable of 15-25 L/s), construction
of pumping stations, supply of electricity and construction of access tracks is $3 million.
6.4.4 Daniel Roux Cave ‘gusher’

The Daniel Roux gusher provides an option for future water resources development on the island.
From the monitoring over several years, it appears that the minimum flow is approximately 15 L/s
(refer section 7.3 of ACTEW, 1999). This is a substantial flow when it is compared with the
minimum flow recorded at Jedda of 13.6 L/s (refer section 7.2 of ACTEW, 1999).
Development of this source of water represents a significant technical challenge and also would
need to gain approval in terms of environmental and possible heritage impacts. A list of relevant
issues which need to be considered before a decision could be made to develop the flow include:
• Environmental and heritage values of the cave;
• Environmental impact on the first terrace where a pump station and pipeline to the
settlement would need to be constructed;
• Potential pollution from areas of the island above the cave;
• The risk of potential reduction in flow due to changed hydrogeological properties of the
limestone through which the water flows to supply the gusher;
• Safety issues related to the development and operation of the water supply system; and
• Technical and economic risks associated with the development of the source.
Further consideration of these issues is beyond the scope of this WMP.
From a technical perspective, development of this source would probably be best achieved by
building a sump around the gusher in the cave below it, and then pumping from this sump. It would
not be feasible to pump water directly from the water in the cave fed by the gusher, as this water has
a variable salinity according to the tide. At high tide, the salinity of the water rises within the cave at
the site of the gusher. This indicates that if pumping was to occur, then the salinity is likely to rise
further.
Building a sump would be technically difficult but this would constitute only a small proportion of the
total work required to develop this source. From the sump, a pipeline, approximately 200 m long,
would need to be laid through the cave system to a point where a borehole could be drilled through
the roof of the cave on the ‘first terrace’ between the cave’s land entrance and the sea entrance.
The pipeline would need to negotiate a number of features within the cave and include many vertical
and horizontal bends. It would probably be most efficient to construct this pipeline from polyethylene
pipes and compression fittings (similar to gravity pipelines from Hewan's and Harrison’s springs to
the Ross Hill Gardens pump station).
At the top of the borehole a pump station could be installed to pump water from the sump. From the
pump station a pipeline would need to be installed so that water could be pumped to George Fam
tank. This could be done by connecting to the pipeline from Drumsite via Smith Point to the George
Fam tank. A chlorination system would be required to ensure disinfection of water.
Based on monitoring data, It is estimated that at a minimum of 15 L/s of flow could be collected from
the gusher. An indicative cost estimate for the development works is $1.5 million.
6.5 Demand Management and Leakage Control Program

6.5.1 Overview
Section 3.5 draws attention, amongst other things, to the need for a demand management program
in relation to water supply. In particular, it is identified as one aspect warranting coverage in the
proposed MOU between the Commonwealth, Administration and Shire. Section 7.6 identifies the
elements of a demand management strategy and also draws attention to the possible use of water
allocation controls to include conditions requiring water conservation initiatives by the Shire.
Elsewhere, this WMP identifies directions with regard to ‘user pays’ water pricing and community
education, which are the key demand management measures being advocated in the national water
reform agenda. Pursuit of these measures is essential to the reduction of water waste and water
loss inside the consumer boundary; as well as the wise use of water by the public, in general. Water
saved through demand management is available for growth in population and commercial enterprise.
In relation to losses from the bulk water supply system, reduction of system leakage provides an
obvious source of water to meet water supply needs (see section 7.8). If system losses are
stemmed, then additional water will be available from current sources thus eliminating the need for
development of new sources.
As mentioned elsewhere in this WMP, while the cost of eliminating water loss from the system, or
the cost of conserving water amongst consumers, is less than the amortised per kilolitre cost of
developing a new source, then these measures will remain the cheapest source of water and should
be pursued in preference to developing new groundwater sources.
6.5.2 Current demand and system losses

In the GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999, section 7.4) a detailed analysis of flows and losses from the water
supply system was undertaken. Using data for 1998, the combined average flow from the sources
(Jedda, Jane Up and Waterfall) was 22.0 L/s.
In October 1998, the estimated leakage rate from the water supply reticulation system between the
main storage tanks (Drumsite, George Fam and Hospital) and the consumer taps was 12 L/s, based
on analysis of night time flows from the main storage tanks. Using this and other information from
bulk meters and consumer connection meters, a water balance for the island’s water supply system
was established (refer Figure 4).
Distribution of the total supply from sources in 1998 of 22 L/s
2.9 L/s (13%)
7.1 L/s (32%)
5.9 L/s (27%)
6.1 L/s (28%)
Loss - sources to tanks Loss - tanks to consumers

Loss - consumer plumbing Actual consumption
Figure 4 Christmas Island Water Supply Balance, 1998

The results summarised above and shown in Figure 4 indicate that in 1998 only about 32% of the
water supplied from the sources was actually being used for productive use by consumers. There
are a number of inherent assumptions in the derivation of Figure 4, as follows:
• All meters accurately recorded flows. This is a reasonable assumption given that nearly
all meters were new. However, errors of between 5 and 10% for individual meters may
be present. At very low flows, consumer meters are likely to under-estimate the amount
of water passing through the meter.
• All consumers are metered.

• Minor mismatches in periods of meter flows are insignificant to the results. For instance,
the Jane Up meter was installed in April 1998 and hence this flow was averaged over a
shorter period than the full year. More importantly, consumer meter readings were
averaged over the period from installation (most installed in 1997) to September/October
1998 (last readings in 1998). It is noted that the average metered water usage for all
consumers was 13.2 L/s for this period. The average combined water usage was
checked for another more defined period and found to be similar. From May 1998 to
February 1998, the average combined water usage was 13.5 L/s, which is very similar to
the other value.
• Minimum night flows should be at zero. This is possibly an unrealistic expectation as all
distribution systems will leak to some degree (e.g. toilet cisterns, taps), and there will
always be some legitimate water use during the night. Realistically, it should be possible
to reduce the minimum night flow across the whole system to about 1-2 L/s. Over say
6 hours at night, such flows would represent an average per capita water usage for
1,500 people of 10-20 litres. If 2 L/s was taken as the upper limit, then the ‘productive
use’ plus a small allowable leakage would be 9.1 L/s or 41% of the combined flows from
sources.
While the 32% figure for ‘productive use’, or the figure of 41% for productive use plus allowable
leakage seem low, they are not surprising for such water supply systems. It is noted that recent leak
analyses in a number of urban centres in the Pacific Islands (Suva in Fiji, Nuku’alofa in Tonga and
South Tarawa in Kiribati) have indicated overall leakage/wastage rates of 70%, or ‘productive water
use’ rates of 30%. While high loss rates do occur, it is possible to reduce leakage to much lower
levels (say 25%, with an upper limit of 30%), with the introduction of leakage detection and control
measures. A reasonable target for water supply system losses on Christmas Island is probably
20%, while more optimistic targets have been mentioned (e.g. 15% in WC/SMEC, 1998). If the 20%
target was achieved, this would mean the actual losses in 1998 would have been about 4.4 L/s.
It is noted that in 1999, some improvements to the leakage situation have occurred, which would
alter the water supply balance shown in Figure 4. These included:
• a major reduction in outflow from the Drumsite tank in early March 1999 due to rectifying
a major leak fed by this storage tank (refer section 7.4.5). The leak of approximately 7-
8 L/s had earlier been detected as part of a leak detection project in late January and
early February in a 100 mm AC main near the CIP’s Drumsite Workshop (Gugich, 1999).
The magnitude of this leak was greater than the estimated losses from tanks to
consumers for 1998 (5.9% as shown lower right segment in Figure 4). This indicates
that these losses may be under-estimated in Figure 4, most probably due to an over-
estimation of the losses from consumer connections.
• the detection of a significant leak in the floor of the Drumsite tank during inspections
(Adrian Hordyk, personal communication). The amount of the loss was similar to the
total loss between the flows from the sources and the distribution tanks of 2.9 L/s (refer
Figure 4).
This analysis indicates that:
(a) system losses have been a substantial proportion of total water supply, and
(b) leak control efforts can lead to substantial reductions in leakage.
Based on experiences elsewhere, short term improvements in leak reduction need to be supported
by an ongoing commitment in order to sustain these short term improvements. Effective demand
management and leakage reduction programs require a long term commitment, and are not just a
matter of undertaking a single project. This can best be achieved by developing and sustaining a
capability within the local water supply authority to undertake an ongoing programme of ‘leakage
control’ (comprising both leak detection and rectification). This means that some staff must be
trained in the necessary techniques for leakage detection and that recurrent budget be supplied to
rectify leaks that are found, or to replace sections of pipeline that are beyond further repair.
The current refurbishment of storage tanks and the proposed replacement of the Jedda to Drumsite
pipeline will assist with overall leakage control, as this pipeline has had a history of breakages with
consequent loss of water.
6.5.3 Future demand management

As mentioned above, it is important that future demand for water is managed and that a leakage
control capability be available on island.
The future demand for water is not expected to rise rapidly. The only significant change in the near
future is the possible need for additional water for the proposed satellite launching facility. According
to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (APSC & SKM, 1999), total annual water use by the
launch facility is anticipated to be 40 ML per annum. The draft EIS states that this water can be
supplied through a combination of existing groundwater resources and through water harvesting off
roofs and hardstand areas of the launch facility. It is further stated in the EIS that approximately 38
ML of rainwater can be harvested from the launch site in an average year.
The average flow rate quoted in the draft EIS is equivalent to about 110 kL/day or 1.3 L/s, which is
equivalent to about 10% of the minimum flow at Jedda Cave. Thus, on an average basis, even if all
the water was required from Jedda, the water requirement would be relatively small. It is important,
however, that sufficient water storage be located at the launch facility to cater for periods of low
rainfall and low flow. In a severe drought, it may not be possible to supply any more water than the
average flow rate. If demand for water at the settlement areas requires all water to be supplied
there, then it may be necessary to significantly, or completely, curtail the water supply to the launch
facility (Falkland, 1999). This is of course a worst case scenario and would not last longer than
several months.
According to the EIS, domestic consumption of potable water is expected to increase with the
population increase associated with the construction and operation of the facility. Peak demand in
the Irvine Hill area is expected to be in the order of 110 ML per annum. The additional estimated
water requirement is equivalent to an average flow of about 300 kL/day or 3.5 L/s. This is a
significant amount of water compared with the present estimated water usage (excluding leaks).
This additional requirement could, however, be accommodated from current sources (Jedda, Jane
Up and Waterfall). If current sources are not capable of supplying the overall demand, then other
options exist as outlined in this section.
6.6 Rainwater collection

There is considerable scope for construction of rainwater collection systems especially at the
household scale. This would tend to reduce the demand on the water supply system, except during
extreme droughts, when it is likely that the supply rate from such tanks would be very small if not
zero.
From purely a water resources viewpoint, the large scale introduction of rainwater systems would
probably not have a major impact on the demand on the public water supply system in critical
periods (extreme droughts). However, rainwater tanks have a number of benefits including:
• decreasing the demand on the system during normal periods when rainwater can be
used for many household purposes,
• increasing the security of supply at normal times (e.g. people can access this source if
the public water supply is temporarily unavailable for a variety of reasons),
• allowing consumers to manage their own water quality (salinity and hardness is lower
and bacteria can be controlled by either boiling or filtering).
While further consideration of rainwater systems is beyond the scope of the Project Brief, it is
recommended that a supplementary study be undertaken to address the issue of possible
introduction of rainwater collection systems. It is recognised that these systems would not be easily
incorporated into housing blocks with multiple occupants but could be suitable for the many
bungalow-style houses on the island. Implementation could be through a subsidy scheme for private
houses and a government funded scheme for government controlled houses.
6.7 Desalination
Desalination of brackish water or sea water is a source of freshwater supply on some islands.
While desalination plants are used on some islands for specific requirements (e.g. at tourist resorts
and military installations and as a temporary measure after natural disasters or during droughts),
there are only a few small islands where desalination is used as the main source of water.
Examples of islands which use desalinated water as the primary source of supply are Malé in the
Maldives and some islands in the Caribbean Sea. Approximately 60% of the water requirements on
the island of Nauru are produced from desalination.
Desalination systems are based either on a distillation or a membrane process. Distillation
processes include multi-stage flash (MSF), multiple effect (ME) and vapour compression (VC) while
the membrane processes include reverse osmosis (RO) and electrodialysis (ED). Descriptions of
these processes are provided together with indicative costs and a comprehensive reference list in
IETC (1998). Further information is provided in UNESCO (1991) and IETC (1998).
All types have been used on islands with varying success. MSF plants operate on the island of
Aruba, Netherlands Antilles in the Caribbean Sea and in the U.S. Virgin Islands there are a number of
ME plants. VC plants operate in the Cayman Islands. A number of seawater RO plants operate in
the U.S. Virgin Islands, Bermuda, on some tourists islands in Fiji and off the coast of Australia and on
Malé in the Maldives. RO units have been installed for emergency use in the Marshall Islands in
1998 and on the atoll of Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati in 1999.
On some islands, however, this technology has not been successful (e.g. Diego Garcia, Funafuti in
Tuvalu and Nomuka in Tonga) and desalination plants have been removed or lay idle. Common
problems have been insufficient filtering of feed water or insufficiently trained operators.
Desalination is a relatively expensive and complex method of obtaining freshwater for small islands
(UNESCO, 1991). The cost of producing desalinated water is almost invariably higher than
‘conventional’ options (e.g. pumping of groundwater) due to the high energy costs and other
operating costs. In extreme cases where other water resources are exhausted it may be a
necessary source of freshwater (e.g. Malé in the Maldives).
In general, desalination should only be considered when more conventional water sources are non-
existent, fully utilised or more expensive to develop. Trained operators and a reliable source of
supply for chemicals and replacement parts are essential for reliable operation.
The costs of desalinating water, taking account of capital and all recurrent costs, are generally in the
range from $5/kL to $10/kL, depending on the particular circumstances. These costs are
considerably greater than the current costs of supplying groundwater on the island (approximately
$2.50/kL: refer section 7.8.4).
For Christmas Island, it is not considered necessary nor desirable to contemplate desalination as an
option while there are present and known potential sources of groundwater.
6.8 Summary of Options

Table 2 provides a summary of development and other options for increasing the supply of water for
beneficial use on the island. The potential flow improvement and indicative development costs are
shown.
The information in Table 2 does not include operating and other recurrent costs. A more detailed
economic appraisal would be required to calculate total costs including operation, maintenance and
depreciation on assets. Such economic analysis is beyond the scope of this project, but should be
undertaken as a follow-up, more detailed study of all options presented.
Table 2 Summary of options for increasing freshwater supply
Potential flow Development Cost Unit cost of

Option development
improvement (L/s) ($)
($/unit flow)
Waterfall spring improvements 2-5 30,000 6,000 – 15,000
Freshwater and Jones spring 2-4 80,000 20,000 – 40,000
improvements
Smithson Bight borehole network 15-25 3,000,000 120,000 - 200,000
(initially 5 production holes)
Daniel Roux gusher collection and 15 1,500,000 100,000
pumping system
Demand Management and Minimisation of System Losses
User-pays charging and education to Depends on targets say 50,000/yr first 2 yrs Not calculated –
achieve water conservation 2-5 20,000/yr ongoing requires further
study
Leakage Control Program 10 250,000-500,000 25,000 – 50,000
Other Options
Rainwater Limited only by Not costed -
collection area and
storage volume
Desalination No specific limit Not costed -
Note : unit flow = 1 L/s
6.9 Preferred Options and Priorities

Based on the summary in Table 2, the highest priority is to maximise the effective use of the current
water sources, Waterfall (3 springs) and Jedda. These are and should remain as the primary
sources of water.
Improvements to the Waterfall Spring should be undertaken as a priority item. Following this, the
other two springs (Freshwater and Jones) that feed the Waterfall pumping system should be
improved.
As a next priority, the secondary sources of Jane Up and Ross Hill Gardens should be utilised to the
fullest extent. This was, in fact, the operational policy adopted by the mining company on the island
in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the mine was in full production, and the water demand was
considerably higher than at present. Water from Jane Up is currently used on an intermittent basis
to ‘top up’ the Jedda storage tank, at times when the Jedda pumps cannot meet demand. There is
no reason to prevent the use of the Jane Up source on a more regular basis. If additional demand
needs to be met, the spring flows from Harrison’s and Hewan’s Springs at Ross Hill Gardens should
be utilised.
Parallel with these activities, the demand management initiatives (pricing and education) advocated
in this WMP and an effective ongoing leakage control program should be implemented. This latter
activity should include repair of known leaks and continual detection and repair of future leaks. As
discussed in Section 3, the capabilities of the water supply authority (currently the Shire) should be
strengthened to ensure that this can be done.
All of the above activities require no new source development.
If additional water is required beyond the capacity of the current sources, and assuming that the
leakage rate from the distribution system has been controlled to an acceptable level (say 25% of
source supply), then the next most suitable options would be groundwater development in the
Smithson Bight area or development of the Daniel Roux Cave gusher. From Table 2 the
development costs of the gusher would be lower per unit of water supplied. However, there are a
number of other issues, as listed in section 6.4.4, which would need to be discussed and resolved.
It is recommended that, at an appropriate time in the future, a more detailed feasibility study of both
these options be undertaken. The study should cover all technical, financial and other
considerations. It should take account of any policy, which may restrict and possibly even prevent
the use of the gusher in Daniel Roux Cave on the basis of environmental, heritage or other
considerations. Such a study would also benefit from further monitoring data from both areas. This
further reinforces the need for continuation of the current water monitoring programs at these and
other sites.
7. WATER ALLOCATION AND CHARGING POLICY

• Address mechanisms for allocation and charging for water.
• Consider the issue of private versus public development or refurbishment of water
supplies.
• Consider appropriate charging policies taking account of the need to provide affordable
water but at the same time recover the costs of providing water; include consideration of
incentives for water conservation through pricing mechanism and consumer education.
• Investigate a scale of charges based on usage and type of customer (private,
commercial).
7.2 Introduction
A range of issues and actions need to be addressed in mapping out the way forward on water
allocation, pricing and charging on Christmas Island. A number of these, such as equity
considerations, historical aspects, traditional patterns of consumption, environmental protection
needs, consumer waste versus system losses, and the special needs of Christmas Islanders, have
been raised in discussions with stakeholders and in progress reports (ACTEW; 1997a; 1997b).
Many of these are highlighted in section 9 - Community Involvement and Awareness.
This section focuses on water allocation (including provision for environmental needs), pricing policy
and water charging.
7.3 Water Allocation

The spirit and intent of the ‘water allocation’ milestones under the national water reform agenda
include, amongst other things:
• arrangements which encourage sustainable water use and recognise provision for the
environment as an essential component of allocation; and
• an ability to provide for clear entitlement and use to consumers while being adaptable to
climatic circumstances.
Christmas Island legislation (Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI)) gives the
Commonwealth ownership of groundwater and surface water resources on the island. However, the
Consultants are unaware of any formal licensing arrangement for the extraction of bulk water supply
needs on Christmas Island. In any event, it is likely that regulations will be necessary under the Act
to facilitate this and enable the imposition of associated conditions. Understandably, under past
arrangements the Administration was hardly expected to licence itself to remove groundwater for
community water supply needs. Nevertheless, this is an example of a situation needing to be
addressed in progressing the application of the national water reform agenda in the Territory.
On Christmas Island, activities and responsibilities under the water allocation umbrella would
embrace:
• water resources investigations and assessment;
• allocation of water for consumer use through water supply schemes (including the
setting of limits and inducement of water use efficiency);
• licensing of private use;
• meeting environmental needs for freshwater; and
• groundwater protection.
The remainder of this section discusses directions on these matters, except for ‘groundwater
protection’ which is addressed in section 8.
7.4 Water Resources Investigations and Assessment

It is noted that a major component of this project relates to investigation of existing and undeveloped
groundwater sources on Christmas Island. These investigations have included monitoring of spring
flows, subterranean streams (Jedda) and groundwater drilling and monitoring. Previous records
collected by the mining company, particularly in the 1960’s and 1970’s have also been reviewed and
incorporated into the present study. Details of investigations are contained in Section 4 and the
parallel GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999).
There is sufficient information now available at some sources to estimate sustainable yields and
thus allow for setting of limits for extraction for community water supply needs, while providing for
environmental flows. Some important sources (notably Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones Springs)
were, however, not included in the recent investigations and monitoring, owing to ongoing issues
regarding the lease and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the Christmas Island
Resort during the course of the water management planning process.
It is important that the Administration continue to maintain an ability to periodically call on technical
expertise in conducting its groundwater and environment protection functions. This would embrace
ongoing monitoring of present water sources and the amounts of water extracted by the Shire (or
others) for water supply, particularly in dry periods. It is also essential that monitoring systems be
installed and operated at the three above-mentioned water sources at and near Waterfall.
This WMP shows that existing sources are sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of around twice
the current population, provided that the efficiency of the present water supply system is improved to
reasonable industry performance levels, and provided a conservation message is given in the water
pricing structure and scheduled charges, and also through public education initiatives.
7.5 Environmental Needs

In respect to environmental needs for water, Parks Australia and the Christmas Island Environment
Officer have expressed concern about the need for surface water releases to continue at locations
such as Ross Hill Gardens in order to meet possible requirements for red and blue crabs, and other
fauna in these locations. Prior to human habitation on the island, it could safely be assumed that the
needs of wildlife for fresh water would have been easily satisfied even in drought.
It is important to continue to make provision for environmental needs, as a priority. The skills and
expertise of Parks Australia staff and the OSS officers supporting the Administration on the island
should continue to address and improve knowledge of environmental flow requirements. Only then
can appropriate modifications be identified and integrated with future ongoing licensing provision for
bulk water. Such information should be taken into account as the Administration moves to a more
formal licensing arrangement proposed below for approving bulk water extraction by the Shire for
community water supply.
In addition, arrangements need to be formalised and documented for the Shire to be advised of the
environmental flow requirements that are to be provided for in the Shire’s bulk water operations (refer
discussion on MOU, section 3.5). Preferably, these flows could be automated in the medium term.
7.6 Licensing for Public Water Supply and Demand Management

On the key matter of water allocation, it is now practice in Western Australia for the Water and
Rivers Commission to give suppliers, such as the Water Corporation, the right to take and use water
through the issue of licences under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. Such licences detail the
conditions under which this access to water is given. The same approach applies to private use of
water. It is noteworthy also that the Water and Rivers Commission is utilising the licensing
arrangements to set conditions which include demonstration of the achievement of water use
efficiency.
It is felt that the current administrative arrangements on Christmas Island which do not sufficiently
separate roles preclude the effective operation of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA)
(CI), as far as the above-listed water allocation functions are concerned. Explicit separation of roles
and moves towards formalisation of the Shire’s responsibilities, as the water utility, would assist in
the achievement of national water reform objectives on Christmas Island. With the use of
appropriately formulated regulations under the above Act, utilisation of this legislation on the island
would be appropriate, even now, to:
• regulate entitlements to bulk water (including the imposition of water restrictions during
emergencies);
• formalise the need to allow for environmental flows;
• require the currently imperative efficiency improvements to the water supply system by
the Shire (with agreed assistance from the Commonwealth); and
• establish the requirement to encourage improved water use efficiency and conservation
in the Christmas Island community.
Based on current evidence, it is clear that an effective demand management strategy is required.
Points three and four above provide the opportunity for formalisation of the need for the Shire to
develop a demand management strategy for water supply in close consultation with the
Administration and community. This is a most important part of the overall WMP and water
management planning process for the island and represents a very significant challenge. It is
essential that the demand for water be managed in a way that is sustainable in terms of the resource
and addresses the economics of operating the water supply system.
A demand management strategy should document the following elements as a basic minimum:
• directions and changes in water pricing policy, charging arrangements and cost recovery
levels for the water service; aimed at encouragement of sustainable use of water
resources and improvement in commercial aspects of the water supply function,
• education and awareness related to conservation and wise use of water,
• encouragement and possibly regulation of the use of water-saving devices (e.g. dual
flush cisterns, low flow shower roses, etc.),
• additional water supply metering,
• ongoing system checks and leak reduction programs,
• rationalisation of water connections to consumers, with each consumer having a single
metered connection,
• water auditing of large water use consumers in both domestic and non-domestic
sectors,
• checks for illegal connections,
• introduction of penalties for illegal connections and illegal use of water from fire hydrants,
and
• full metering of standpipes and charging for water usage.
The implementation of such a strategy will necessarily go beyond this Plan. It will involve the
resourcing, funding and training of sufficient staff to carry out the necessary work. The directions,
content and resourcing aspects of the demand management strategy should be integrated with the
MOU between the Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire, as discussed in section 3.5.
7.7 Licensing for Private Water Use

In progress reports (ACTEW, 1997a; 1997b), the Consultants have raised concerns about private
establishments such as the CIR providing components of the Christmas Island water supply.
Leaving this concern aside, however, in the event that CIR were to retain/recover responsibility for
operation of the Waterfall source, the Administration would need to license this water extraction.
Similarly, defined provisions or licence conditions as identified above in relation to the Shire’s water
supply operations would be necessary; that is in regard to environmental flows, bulk entitlements,
and demand management targets (e.g. water use efficiency and conservation).
A similar approach would need to be adopted in relation to any other private water sourcing activities
on the island.
7.8 Pricing Policy and Water Charging Arrangements

7.8.1 Background and context
This sub-section focuses on pricing policy and charging. It relates to the cost recovery and pricing
objectives in the national water reform agenda and their practical application on Christmas Island.
The general principles for water pricing and cost recovery under the agreed COAG approach seek
the adoption of regimes based on consumption-based pricing, full cost recovery and desirably the
removal of cross-subsidies which are not consistent with efficient and effective service in water
provision and usage. Where cross-subsidies continue to exist, they should be made transparent. In
addition, where the service deliverer is required to provide water services to particular classes of
customer at less than full cost, the cost of this is to be fully disclosed and ideally paid to the service
provider as a CSO.
The spirit of intent behind these requirements is that consumers receive clear price signals reflecting
full costs of supply. The same principles apply in the provision of wastewater services.
The milestones being sought under the COAG agenda (see ARMCANZ, 1996), require charging
arrangements for water services comprising an access or connection component together with an
additional component (or components) to reflect usage, where this is cost effective. By1998, these
charges are to apply for urban water services. For rural water supplies, which is considered the
more appropriate classification for Christmas Island, the COAG agenda requires, among other
things:
• where charges do not currently fully cover the costs of supplying water to users, such
charges and costs be progressively reviewed so that no later than 2001 they comply with
the principle of full cost recovery, with any subsidies made transparent and preferably
provided to the service deliverer as a CSO;
• to achieve positive real rates of return on the written down replacement costs of assets
by 2001, where practicable;
• that future investment in new schemes or extensions to existing schemes be undertaken
only after appraisal indicates it is economically viable and ecologically sustainable; and
• where it is not currently the case, to the setting aside of funds for future asset
refurbishments and/or upgrading of government supplied water infrastructure.
The spirit of intent is that rural water supplies are economically and environmentally sustainable, that
users receive clear price signals, and that this should be through consumption based tariffs.
7.8.2 Present situation on Christmas Island

As could be expected, the present delivery of the water supply service on Christmas Island lacks the
necessary degree of ‘commerciality’ called for under the national water reform agenda.
At the time of drafting this WMP charges for water on Christmas Island were:
• Residential $184 per annum
• Commercial and Industrial $320 per annum
• Government Purposes $462 per annum
• Vacant Land $116 per annum
• Stand Pipe Charge $0.525/kL
• Construction and Miscellaneous (estimated) $0.525/kL
To date, it has not been possible to have a usage component in the water charging structure, as a
full meter installation program only commenced in 1997.
In reality, the fixed charge approach to pricing leads to excessive waste. The first Progress Report
(ACTEW, 1997a) stressed the importance of working quickly to introduce an element of pay-for-use
in the water charging system. With over a year of metered consumption data available, an equitable
approach to the setting of water use tariffs is possible. However, this consumption data, coupled
with bulk metering data, also showed that the water supply system losses were very significant (in
the order of 70% in 1998, as shown in Figure 4). This is much higher than acceptable practice levels
(10-20%) in the Australian water industry, but similar to urban centres in some Pacific islands (refer
section 6.5). It would be unfair to load the costs associated with this level of system losses on
Christmas Island consumers, and it would be inappropriate not to work towards rectification of the
present situation. In 1999, a number of significant leaks have been detected and repaired, as
outlined in section 6.5.2. A target of 20% losses would seem realistic.
7.8.3 Water costs - the level of subsidisation

Consumption data on Christmas Island indicates that the median domestic water consumption is of
the order of 390 kL/year, while average (mean) consumption is in the order of 540 kL/year. This can
be compared with mainland Australia where average residential consumption is in the order of
350 kL/year (refer Figure 5 showing consumption data for the three consumption sectors). This data
also indicates that there is a small group (around 20%) of consumers at the top end of consumption
using as much water as is consumed by the remaining 80% of residential users. This situation will
continue while there is no consumption-based pricing signal given in the water charging
arrangements. Some consumers using thousands of kilolitres of water each year pay the same
annual charge as those using several hundred kilolitres or less. This is inequitable and needs to be
addressed quickly.
12,000
Consumptions for each category were calculated using
the addition of average water usage for all consumers
10,000 in that category. Usage was calculated from date of
installation (most in early 1997) to September 1998
Consumption (kL/year)
8,000
Residential Commercial Public

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of consumers with lower consumption
Figure 5 Water Consumption Curves for Residential, Commercial and Public

Categories
To put the level of water supply usage on Christmas Island into some economic perspective,
comparisons can be made with mainland water usage trends and water charges in 1997-98.
For the median consumption of 390 kL/year, the annual cost on Christmas Island was $184.00. In
Western Australia, say in a harsh climate area, the present cost for this level of consumption would
have been in the order of $460; in Perth the cost would have been similar, while in Sydney the cost
would have been in the order of $390. These comparisons give some indication of the underlying
subsidisation levels for water supply by the Commonwealth on Christmas Island.
In relation to large commercial and public users of water on Christmas Island, such as the Golf
Course, and the Nursery, there is currently an enormous subsidisation of their consumption with
fixed annual costs of $320 and $462, respectively, regardless of their very substantial consumption
levels.
7.8.4 Operating costs and system water loss

As mentioned above, bulk water production metering data from 1998 confirmed earlier estimates of
system loss on Christmas Island – in the order of 70%. Figure 4 highlights the stark reality of the
situation in 1998 which was then facing the Christmas Island Administration, the Shire and the
community with respect to water supply leakage excesses – coupled with the levels of water supply
subsidisation; in a remote island situation with limited groundwater resources; in a delicate
environmental context; and with no ability to borrow water from a neighbouring shire in the event of
disruption to water supply sources. Recent leakage detection work conducted in early and mid
1999, combined with repairs to water supply infrastructure has improved this situation. However,
further improvements are essential.
Unfettered water consumption as well as excessive system losses (leakage) lead to very high
operating costs for the pipelines and pumps involved. Pump failure and wear will be high compared
to a more normal situation of demand and supply. Ultimately, unnecessary further capital cost will
be required to open up other water sources to meet growth in demand.
It is also very important to consider water demand and supply excesses from the ‘energy’
perspective. Sourcing and supplying water on the Island involves high electricity costs associated
with pumping from underground water sources. Electricity is very expensive to produce on
Christmas Island, costing around $0.30/kWh to generate and deliver, compared with a commonly
expected price of around $0.10/kWh delivered on the mainland. It is noteworthy too that the energy
involved in providing water for domestic residents on the Island is subsidised by some $0.15/kWh to
the Shire of Christmas Island. This subsidised cost of using electricity to deliver water is not passed
on to the consumer because water is not paid for on the basis of use. However, the subsidised
electricity costs are reflected in water supply operating costs for the Shire.
Over the period 1995-97, annual water supply operating costs, including office and administrative
overheads, averaged $460,000. Annual depreciation costs for water supply assets were calculated
to be in the order of $520,000 (see WA Water Corporation and SMEC, 1998). With a system
throughput in the order of 700,000 kL/year and metered usage of around 400,000 kL/year, the cost of
delivered water was $2.45/kL; with bulk supply system losses in the order of 45% (consumer losses
were in the order of 25%). The achievement of more acceptable system losses of around 10-20%
for the period would have led to reduced operational costs associated with delivered water, including
around $22,000 savings in electricity not required for pumping. Assuming an overall reduction in
operating costs of between $30,000 and $50,000, for a 25% reduction in throughput, a cost of
delivered water in the order of $2.35/kL could be achieved.
It is also noted that the rectification of system loss is the most obvious source of water to meet
demand growth. If the system losses are stemmed, then essentially, this additional water will be
available from current sources (e.g. Jedda) for future growth in water demand. As noted in
section 6.5.1, while ever the cost of eliminating water loss from the system, or the cost of conserving
water amongst consumers, is less than the amortised per kilolitre cost of developing a new source,
then this will remain the cheapest source of water and should be pursued in preference to
developing new groundwater sources. This approach follows ‘least cost planning’ principles and is
consistent with the COAG water reform agenda for sustainable water use (see section 7.8.1 above).
7.8.5 Water charging scenarios and implications for consumers

In the absence of a water pricing structure based on payment for use, and without an onus of
‘commerciality’ on the Shire in the efficiency with which it delivers the water service, excessive
consumption will continue amongst a small segment of the community and system leakage will
continue. High energy cost and waste will also occur. In effect, high water users will continue to use
as much water as they like - by paying the fixed charge for the year, they are ‘licensed’ to over-use or
waste water, without financial penalty.
Hence, it is important to introduce an element of demand management through more effective water
charging as soon as possible. This may have been achieved in the past, at least initially, by
introducing a basic water allowance (say of 350 kL/year) for the annual fixed charge, after which an
excess tariff could have applied. Alternatively, and preferably, now that water consumption data is
available, a fixed charge or connection fee should apply supported by a consumption-based tariff (or
tariffs) from the first kilolitre used.
This type of approach is being encouraged by the national water industry reform agenda. It would
serve not only to rein in excessive water usage in the upper consumption bracket but would also
provide the incentive for reading and maintaining meters. Ultimately, full user-pays water pricing is
the goal nationally, consistent with the Commonwealth Government’s support for national policies in
this regard. However, it is recognised that some level of subsidy may remain appropriate on
Christmas Island even if system losses are reduced to an acceptable level. Nevertheless, this
should be made transparent and identified as a CSO; together with any goals for reducing the level
of subsidisation over time.
On the basis of water consumption data (see Figure 5), the cost of water at the 20, 50, 90 and 99%
consumption levels were calculated for the residential, commercial and public sectors, using
charges based on the following three pricing models:
Model 1 Gazetted fixed charges on Christmas Island 1998:

Domestic ($184);Commerce ($320);Govt ($462);Vacant ($116);Standpipe (0.525/kL)
Model 2 1991 gazetted schedule of Christmas Island water charges:

Service Charge ($113.40); Consumption tariff ($0.34/kL)
Model 3 Charges for Western Australia North 1998:

(a) Service Charge:
Residential (Domestic) Commercial/Public
$130.10 Based on %age of GRV (not available)
Assume $130.10 for calculations here
(b) Consumption tariff ($/kL) is based on the data in Table 3
Table 3 Consumption tariff for Western Australia North 1998
Volume Cumulative Rate Total

(kL) Volume ($/kL) ($)
(kL)
165 165 0.385 193.63
385 550 0.589 420.39
100 650 0.645 484.89
100 750 0.804 565.29
400 1150 1.235 1,059.29
400 1550 1.776 1,769.69
400 1950 2.047 2,588.49
More More 2,380
A summary of the costs of water at the 20, 50, 90 and 99% consumption levels is provided in Table 4
for the residential, commercial and public sectors, using charges based on the above three pricing
models.
Under the then current water charging arrangements (Model 1), domestic consumers who use some
100 kL/year, pay the same amount as consumers using some 2,000 kL/year. In the commercial
sector, some 20% of consumers use 40 kL/year or less and pay $320 each, compared with the
highest consumption levels, two orders of magnitude higher , for the same charge of $320. The
public sector is even more inequitable, with top level consumption being nearly three orders of
magnitude higher than consumption amongst the bottom 20% of consumers, but for the same
annual charge of $462.
Residential Commercial Public

(assume similar charges to residential) (assume similar charges to residential)
Annual Percentile of Annual Annual Percentile of Annual Annual Percentile of Annual
Consumpt consumers Charge Consumpt consumers Charge Consumpt consumers Charge
(kL) ($) (kL) ($) (kL) ($)
1. Current charges (not based on consumption ie service charge only)
118 20% 184.00 40 20% 320.00 100 20% 462.00
350 50% 184.00 240 50% 320.00 420 50% 462.00
1065 90% 184.00 1830 90% 320.00 4400 90% 462.00
1950 99% 184.00 3600 99% 320.00 9000 99% 462.00
2. 1991 gazetted charges on Christmas Island

118 20% 153.52 40 20% 127.00 100 20% 147.40
350 50% 232.40 240 50% 195.00 420 50% 256.20
1065 90% 475.50 1830 90% 735.60 4400 90% 1,609.40
1950 99% 776.40 3600 99% 1,337.40 9000 99% 3,173.40
3. WA Country North Class 1 (from Water Corporation)

118 20% 175.53 40 20% 145.50 100 20% 168.60
350 50% 432.69 240 50% 367.90 420 50% 473.92
1065 90% 1,084.42 1830 90% 2,472.95 4400 90% 8,549.59
1950 99% 2,718.59 3600 99% 6,645.59 9000 99% 19,497.59
Table 4 Annual water consumption costs based on above charging models

Models 2 and 3 demonstrate the advantages of consumption tariffs in registering annual bills
commensurate with levels of water usage. Clearly, top level consumers will require early warning of
the impacts of annual water bills under a user-pays system. A community ‘induction’ period would
seem highly appropriate, during which:
• high profile community information is provided on the imminent consumption-based
water pricing;
• ‘dummy’ bills are sent to all consumers with advice on how to use water wisely and
reduce consumption; and
• information is provided on where additional advice is available for consumers who need
special assistance in reducing their consumption levels.
In reviewing the options for an optimum consumption-based pricing model appropriate for initial
introduction on Christmas Island, the following considerations and needs were viewed as important:
• avoid complicated water rate structures involving more than one or two consumption
tariffs;
• allow for assured annual revenue to cover wet years (when consumption would be low)
by maintaining reasonable levels of fixed or connection charges;
• avoid increased water bills for those consumers at or below median consumption of
around 350 kL/year – in other words, seek to maintain the level of current annual water
charges for around 50 per cent of residential consumers at or below $184 in the first year
of introduction of consumption-based pricing;
• provide appropriate ‘conservation’ pricing signals for high level domestic, public and
commercial consumption;
• avoid the creation of cross-subsidies between consumption sectors (preferably by
maintaining similar consumption tariffs for all consumer categories); and
• endeavour to at least maintain, if not improve, the annual revenue position for water
supply services on Christmas Island.
A further three pricing models were reviewed, in addition to models 1-3 above, in the interests of
identifying the one which best responds to the above parameters. These were:
Model 4
Residential (Domestic) Charge Commercial/Public Charge
$110 Could be based on %age of GRV as proxy
for connection costs - assume $110 here
Consumption tariff ($/kL)
$0.20 (0-300 kL); and $0.70 (>300 kL)
Model 5
$120 As above – assume $120 here
$0.20 (0-400 kL); and $0.70 (>400 kL)
Model 6
$130 As above - assume $130 here
$0.15 (0-355 kL); and $0.70 (>355 kL)
Table 5 provides a summary of all six pricing models, together with:

• the percentage of consumers with bills less than or equal to $184/year, assumed in the
year of introduction (1999-2000);
• potential revenue from the domestic, public and commercial sectors on Christmas Island
in the first year of operation, under each of the following three sets of water consumption
scenarios:
(1) Existing Usage
No change to present consumption patterns/levels.
(2) Reduced Usage #1
For residential, assume 50% reduction of consumption above 355 kL/yr;
For commercial/public, assume 50% reduction of consumption above 1000 kL/yr.
(3) Reduced Usage #2
For residential, assume 50% reduction of consumption between 355 and 1000 kL/yr;
and, 75% reduction of consumption above 1000 kL/yr.
For commercial/public, assume 50% reduction of consumption above 1000 kL/yr.
Figure 6 provides a graphical representation of annual revenues under the three water consumption
scenarios for each of the six pricing models.
Table 5 Summary of charging models examined and associated outcomes
Model Fixed User User Thres- %age users Revenue: Existing

(Domestic) Usage
Charge ($) Tariff Stage 1 Tariff Stage 2 Hold for
(All sectors same =or<$184 #1 Reduced Usage
charge except
($/kL) ($/kL) Stage 2
/year #2 Reduced Usage
Model 1)
1 184, 320, N/A N/A N/A All $178,000

462, etc Actual 1997-98
2 113.40 0.34 N/A N/A 33 $205,000
$181,000
$178,000
3 130.10 0.385 0.589 +6 more 165 22 $538,000
tariffs shown etc $385,000
previously $370,000
4 110 0.20 0.70 300 47 $269,000
$207,000
$201,000
5 120 0.20 0.70 400 47 $260,000
$196,000
$190,000
6 130 0.15 0.70 355 50 $265,000

$202,000
$195,000
Notes – concerning ‘Revenue’:
1. Revenue estimates are preliminary only, except for Model 1 showing actual revenue 1997-98.
2. For the other models estimates are likely to be significantly below actuals because they:
• do not include revenue from vacant land allotments or from standpipe connections.
• are unable to take account of properties not yet metered or not yet on the Shire database
spreadsheet for metered water consumption; further work on the spreadsheet is required by the
Shire before exact calculations can be made; and
• do not include potentially increased revenue from higher connection fees for commercial and public
consumers than allowed for here.
$600,000
Public
Commercial
$500,000 Residential
$400,000
Revenue
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
1998#4
1998#5
1998#6
WA North
1991
Existing
Model
Figure 6 Annual revenues for the three water consumption scenarios
Of all the models shown, Model 6 responds best to the previously listed parameters for an optimum
consumption-based pricing model for Christmas Island. However, one disadvantage is that the
lower tariff of $0.15 could be considered as not truly representative of the cost associated with the
provision of a kilolitre of water on the island. Nevertheless, in subsequent years this tariff could be
increased gradually to overcome this drawback, while the fixed charge might be reduced.
The notes on revenue under Table 5 are highlighted for consideration. While actual revenue for
1997-98 was in the order of $178,000 (Model 1), calculations underlying this report underscored this
figure by nearly 20%. Although the reasons for this are expected to be as explained in the notes, it is
recommended that the Shire continue to review and update the database spreadsheet for metered
water consumption to ensure its accuracy.
In the lead up to the suggested community ‘induction’ period, it is recommended that Model 6, or a
selected, similar model, be used on metered consumption at that time, to test the likely impacts on
consumer bills and associated equity considerations.
Finally, as mentioned previously in this report, it is important to maintain regulatory control on prices.
The Shire has responsibility already for revenue collection relating to water services. As part of its
formal carriage of responsibility for water supply, it should have the discretion to submit proposed
annual water rates to the Administration for approval. This approval process would be intended to
ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between social equity, service delivery efficiency
and cost recovery aspects.
8. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

• assess appropriate measures to maintain the quality of the island's water resources at
the levels appropriate to the required uses. Consider measures such as land use
controls within certain distances of vulnerable groundwater resources including total or
partial restriction of development, effluent discharge standards and controls over storage
and transmission of chemical substances;
• take account of existing guidelines for groundwater protection and the Aquifer
classification and vulnerability component of the Groundwater Investigations and
Monitoring Program.
8.2 Introduction
The groundwater resources of Christmas Island are rated as having a high to very high vulnerability
to contamination, as outlined in section 4.7 and shown in Figure 3. The areas of high and very high
vulnerability, correspond approximately to basal and perched groundwater aquifers.
importance to the local island community, as well as consideration of the substantial costs
associated with the removal of any contamination. On Christmas Island, where the community is
almost totally dependent on groundwater for supply, this need for protection is essential for the
benefit of existing and future residents.
Growth in population, urban development and industrial activity will place increasing demands on
groundwater resources. Depending on the extent to which land use planning and environmental
controls are used to protect groundwater, the potential for pollution of land or surface water will
increase the threat to groundwater quality.
Contamination of groundwater may not become apparent for many years after pollution occurs.
Protection and careful management are therefore essential to avoid the high costs for clean-up. In
some cases, it might not be possible to restore polluted groundwater sources.
Pollution of groundwater by sewage may also threaten public health. Serious outbreaks of
gastroenteritis are known of, for example, from water pollution in island communities living in close
proximity to their groundwater supplies. In addition, over-pumping of groundwater can render it
unusable where this leads to entry of polluted water or intrusion of saline water (e.g. brackish water
or seawater).
8.3 Sources of Pollution

The groundwater on Christmas Island is, in many locations, potentially vulnerable to contamination
from a number of present and possible future sources.
As discussed in the GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999), contamination of groundwater can be caused by a
number of localised sources (‘point sources’) and from activities over a wide area (‘non-point
sources’ or ‘diffuse sources’). Examples of point sources of pollution are hydrocarbon spills,
leachate from rubbish disposal areas and sewerage discharges. Examples of non-point sources of
pollution are agricultural chemicals for weed control, etc.
On Christmas Island, the most likely sources of contamination are point sources such as rubbish
disposal areas and hydrocarbon discharges from leaking pipes or ruptured tanks. Other possible
sources are leaks in sewerage systems and accidental oil or fuel leaks from vehicles.
Most of the present potential sources of pollution are currently located in the north-eastern part of the
island, where the population is centred. Other potential sources of pollution are temporary mine
workings (mainly from associated vehicles) and future developments (e.g. development of a satellite
launch facility and associated infrastructure at South Point).
In summary, potential, and in some cases actual, sources of pollution on Christmas Island are:
• rubbish disposal areas producing leachate and polluted water;

• leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines;
• fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide use;
• pollution from sewerage infrastructure;
• mining industry activities and wastes;
• urban stormwater; and
• seawater intrusion.
Probably, the largest threat is the potential impact from rubbish disposal. There are many examples
of actual and potential environmental pollution on the island, based mainly on both controlled and
indiscriminate dumping of wastes, and location of potentially hazardous substances in
environmentally sensitive locations.
8.4 Investigations and Discussions

The following investigations were carried out during the course of the WMP development process.
• Preparation of an aquifer classification and groundwater vulnerability maps.
• Review of available literature on groundwater protection.
• Review of the results of previous relevant studies on Christmas Island, particularly the
dye tracing study to assess the impact of the existing landfill site on water sources
(Falkland, 1994).
• Drilling and monitoring of the 3 pollution monitoring boreholes at the existing landfill site.
• Discussions with the Administration, the Shire, the Christmas Island Environment
Officer, OSS representatives from the Northern Territory, GHD Pty Ltd (formerly Works
Australia) and other agencies, such as CIP, about various waste disposal activities and
practices.
• Preparation of community discussion paper covering, amongst other matters, these
issues.
• Conducting a public meeting which featured much discussion on the issues of pollution,
environmental degradation and possible impacts on groundwater.
8.5 Requirements for Adequate Groundwater Protection

8.5.1 Land use planning
In the past, land use planning on the island has not strongly featured groundwater as one of the key
elements in the planning process. This has been due partly as a result of the limited knowledge and
information available to those involved in the planning process, but partly also to insufficient
emphasis being placed on the assessment, management and protection of the island's water
resources. The Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire have an opportunity to ensure
present land use activities and controls are adequate to protect groundwater. As listed above, key
areas of interest include waste disposal practices, wastewater management and the location and
effects of urban development and mining activities on groundwater.
As an important component of the WMP, groundwater protection measures should include land use
controls over any activities which may lead to groundwater pollution, including total or partial
restriction of development, effluent discharge standards and controls over storage and transmission
of chemical substances.
activity which may pollute the environment. It is suggested there is a need to exercise the
‘precautionary principle’ with respect to waste disposal where there is clearly scientific uncertainty
about the potential for groundwater pollution. It is recommended that a ‘zero discharge’ policy is the
most appropriate for all potential pollutants over the whole island. Licensing should require strict
precautions to be exercised by the Shire and private operators (such as CIP) on the island to protect
groundwater. This should include the drilling of pollution monitoring boreholes, as was done for the
existing rubbish tip.
8.5.2 Waste management

Waste management provides significant challenges for the Administration, the Shire and the
Christmas Island community at large. Once again, as in the case of water supply, the limits to
available resources - in this case, land - for sound waste management practice are particularly acute
in the island situation. It is important that waste for landfill be minimised and that every cubic metre
of waste landfill space is used efficiently. This requires appropriate planning, design and funding.
Issues of waste separation, incineration of hospital waste, alternative arrangements for handling of
toxic and hazardous waste need to be carefully addressed.
The community discussion paper (refer Annex B) draws attention to the importance of waste
disposal practices, especially the siting of disposal areas in situations where groundwater is not
threatened, and attention generally to sound land use planning and management practices.
Previously (e.g. Falkland, 1994), attention has been drawn to the need to site landfills in safer areas
so that the threat of water resource pollution is minimised.
The community must play a vital part in minimising waste for disposal, with leadership from the Shire
to segregate all wastes and utilise shredding, composting and compaction to ensure only inert
wastes are sent to landfill, hazardous materials are not dumped and organic materials are utilised for
compost.
In addition, strict guidelines and procedures concerning the locations of chemical and other
substances near known or potential water resources need to be developed and enforced.
8.5.3 Ongoing monitoring

Some baseline samples have been obtained from the current rubbish tip boreholes. Results of
these are discussed in section 7.5 of the GIM Report (ACTEW, 1999).
Water quality samples should be obtained and tested at 12 monthly intervals from the following
sites:
• pollution monitoring boreholes BH9 and BH10 at the current rubbish disposal site;
• any future monitoring boreholes at rubbish disposal sites;
• Jedda Cave, Waterfall and Ross Hill Gardens flows. Waterfall should be samples at a
location where the combined water from all 3 springs, Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones,
can be sampled; and
• monitoring boreholes BH1 and BH4 in the Smithson Bight area (top tube in each hole).
The Daniel Roux Cave gusher should be added to this list provided that (a) entry to the cave is safe
and (b) this site is still seen as a possible groundwater development option (refer section 6.4.4).
The most appropriate sampling time is towards the end of the wet season when water tables are
high. Samples should be sent to a recognised laboratory in Perth (e.g. AGAL) for testing. The
required tests should include the following:
• Basic water chemistry (conductivity, TDS, major cations and anions),
• Nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, orthophosphate, total phosphorous),
• Hydrocarbons (TPH and BTEX),
• Heavy metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese.
Lead, selenium and zinc), and
• Pesticides (OC and OP).
Results should be circulated to the Shire, the Administration, and the Christmas Island Environment
Officer.
If unacceptable readings are found for any pollutant, then repeat samples should be obtained
immediately from the affected site(s) and retested. If unacceptable readings are found for any
pollutant at a water source (Jedda, Waterfall), then it should be closed until re-sampling and testing
has been undertaken. If this situation continues, then the island has a significant problem with its
water supply, and alternative sources need to be brought on line. Water restrictions may need to be
imposed at least as a short to medium term solution until alternative sources are available.
Monitoring should continue at affected sources at 3 monthly intervals after the first sign of pollution.
They should not be re-used (for potable purposes) until at least two consecutive samples show
acceptable water quality.
If found necessary, remedial measures to decontaminate the groundwater should be examined. It is
noted that this would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult and expensive task, and underlines the
real need to prevent contamination of water resources rather than looking to remedial measures if
contamination was to occur.
8.5.4 Future waste disposal sites

During the island visit in October 1998, it became apparent that a new waste disposal facility was
being considered in an excavated and mined pit-area near the Airport. Advice has been given
previously that this location is inappropriate because of proximity to groundwater. While assurances
were given that the disposal pit would be lined with a membrane, reservations are still held because:
• the membrane may become perforated due to the rocky nature of the underlying surface;
and
• the membrane will catch leachates which will need special treatment facilities not
necessarily available on the island.
Monitoring boreholes should be drilled at proposed future rubbish tips and similar monitoring
arrangements, as outlined previously in this section, should apply to newly developed facilities. Best
practice environment protection measures, including leachate containment and treatment should be
followed.
The adoption of sustainable development or ESD principles, together with a knowledge of
groundwater vulnerability, should influence the siting of waste disposal operations, the nature of
wastes being disposed and the approaches to management of sites to a much more significant
extent than is currently the case on Christmas Island. As already discussed, land use planning will
feature strongly in groundwater resource protection and in the selection and management of
disposal sites. Present knowledge continues to point to a preferred solution for a waste disposal site
away from potential freshwater areas i.e. to where impacts of groundwater pollution are low - South
Point is still considered the best, even if a space port is to be located there.
9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND AWARENESS

• Seek and develop opportunities for community involvement in developing the Plan for
water management and protection:
- hold discussions with relevant agencies and organise initial community meetings
early in the project to ascertain the level of awareness of water issues and to gain
feedback on the required extent of community involvement;
- during development of the Plan, make drafts available at an appropriate time to
obtain public comments; hold additional discussions and community meetings as
necessary depending on the level of public interest; and
- utilise this process to give the community an appreciation of the need for
conservation and protection of the island’s water resources.
• Identify a public education and awareness programme as part of the overall Plan
development, including:
- transfer of information on management and protection of water resources in an
understandable way to managers, residents and tourists;
- a primary focus on the encouragement of water conservation measures;
- appropriate methods for raising awareness including posters, brochures and radio
broadcasts; and
- community involvement in the design of appropriate material.
9.2 Introduction
(ESD) and is reinforced by the COAG Strategic Framework for Water Reform (section 7 of COAG,
1994). Within this context, and under the terms of the brief, community involvement was adopted as
a most important aspect. This emphasis on community involvement must continue as part of the
ongoing water management planning process for Christmas Island.
9.3 Community Consultation Efforts

It was decided at an early stage in the project to develop a discussion paper as a starting point for
the interaction on water issues with the Christmas Island community. A draft discussion paper
“Christmas Island Water Management - Issues for Community Discussion”, was prepared,
circulated to the Territories Office, Canberra and the Administration for comment. Following receipt
of comments, the paper was revised (refer ACTEW, 1997a) in preparation for the first visit to
Christmas Island (refer Annex B).
During October/November 1996, meetings and discussions regarding water issues were held with
personnel from many of the key organisations on the island. Copies of the discussion paper were
circulated during these meetings and discussions and feedback were requested.
A presentation on water management issues was made to Councillors at the Shire of Christmas
Island Council meeting on 22 October 1996. During the October 1996 visit, a half hour interview
which addressed the key issues of concern in the discussion paper was held with Margie Campbell
for a Community Information Broadcast on Radio VLU2-FM, Christmas Island. This interview was
re-broadcast several times in subsequent weeks to the local community. Other notable activities
included a classroom workshop with students and teachers at the Christmas Island District School.
These events and the additional discussions and meetings enabled a broad range of issues to be
raised and considered, including water resource availability, sustainability and management; water
supply systems - current status and future directions; water demand management and
conservation; and major concerns about environmental pollution from a number of sources.
On the basis of discussions and feedback, the original discussion paper was also condensed and
streamlined into a small leaflet, summarising the main issues. The original discussion paper was
retained for ongoing circulation and use with key stakeholders, while the leaflet, entitled “Christmas
Island Water Management - Summary of Issues for Community Discussion”, was developed in
consultation with stakeholders for distribution to the wider community. The text was translated from
English into both Chinese and Malay. Copies of all three versions (refer Annex C) were distributed
with a covering letter in early January 1997 to all known clubs and societies on the island. A copy of
the list of recipients and an example letter were provided in the first Progress Report (ACTEW
1997a).
During the October/November 1996 visit to Christmas Island, and in follow up reporting and articles
to the “Islander’’, the intention to hold a community meeting in April/May 1997 was publicised. More
specific invitations to the public meeting were issued in close consultation with the Shire.
Discussions with the Chief Executive of the Shire led to the view that only one meeting, early in the
week following the Local Government Elections (3 May 1997), would be appropriate given the
anticipated levels of interest and the population size of the Island. A public meeting early in that week
allowed opportunity for follow up discussions in the same week while the consultants were available
on the island. Details of the proposed public meeting were provided in letters of invitation to
community groups and also in the ‘Islander’ Newsletter.
In summary, precursors to the public presentation and discussion session included:
• drafting of the public discussion paper ‘Christmas Island water Management - Issues for
Community Discussion’ - December 1996, in consultation with Territories Office, the
Administration and the Shire;
• discussion about the issues in this paper with a range of official and community
stakeholders during the Christmas Island visit of October/November 1996;
• preparation of the leaflet ‘Christmas Island Water Management - Summary of Issues for
Community Discussion’, and translation into Chinese and Malay versions;
• circulation of the above public discussion papers to a wide range of Christmas Island
community organisations and interested groups for comment, in close liaison with the
Administration and the Shire;
• several articles and notifications about the planned public meeting on water supply
issues; and
• invitations to the public meeting in close consultation with the Shire.
The public meeting occurred on the evening of 5 May 1997 in the Shire Chambers, and was well
attended with between 25 and 30 participants. This represented between 1 and 2 per cent of the
island population, and in these terms was to be seen as a very positive expression of interest and/or
concern about water supply issues by the community.
At the meeting, which was introduced by the Shire President, some 45 minutes was devoted to
presentations by the Consultant Team (Rod Usback and Tony Falkland) on key water supply issues
for community information and consideration. This was then followed by over an hour of questions
and discussions amongst participants and presenters. An outline of topics and issues covered in
the presentation is listed below and full coverage of this can be assessed from the overheads
package which has been provided to the Administration and the Shire, and is available from the
Consultant Team.
The presentation focused on:
• the importance of community involvement;
• issues identified in the discussion leaflets;
• key aspects of the emerging WMP;
• an explanation of the current water supply system;
• alternative water sources;
• ESD and sustainable use of water;
• the role of water conservation (behavioural changes and more efficient use of water);
and
• demand management (education and awareness and pricing).

In addition, a range of information material and stocks of water supply leaflets from the mainland
were made available to participants at the meeting including:
• Christmas Island Water Management “Issues for Community Discussion” - a Public
Discussion Paper - December 1996;
• Leaflet on Water Management “Summary of Issues for Community Discussion”;
• Waterwise “Blue Thumb” leaflet;
• ACTEW Water Conservation Awards pamphlet;
• Advice on Rainwater Tanks;
• Effluent Reuse through Water Mining - an ACTEW leaflet;
• Wastewater Reuse leaflet concerning domestic scale treatment and reuse of effluent;
• How to Use Water Wisely in Your Garden;
• Hardie - Pope leaflets on efficient water use in the garden.
As mentioned, this public meeting was very successful in terms of participant numbers, exceeding
by far the expectations of local officials. The meeting provided an opportunity to put the important
key elements of a draft Christmas Island WMP to members of the public to stimulate discussion and
comment.
Feedback indicated that the meeting was very successful in the achievement of its objectives,
namely raising the awareness of the local community about key issues and stimulating thought,
discussion and ‘feedback’ for the Consultants, the Administration and the Shire.
There was considerable interest in the issues of system loss, water waste and water pricing.
Questions were raised about consumption patterns of mainland communities as a matter of
comparison, but others questioned the appropriateness of comparisons with mainland communities
on the grounds that Christmas Island was different because of location, lifestyle, tradition, cost of
housing, food and supplies, etc.
Representatives of the Chinese community indicated there was concern among their members
about paying for water. They suggested there is a strong feeling that because the costs of living on
Christmas Island are so high, there should always be compensation or subsidisation of these costs,
for example in the costs of water. At least two participants put the view that it would be unfair to
make people pay more for water, particularly, with the added circumstances of needing more water
for gardening and for washing down of dust from ‘everything’ including houses.
The issue of dust suppression for local roads as a consequence of the phosphate mining on the
island was raised. It was felt this was possibly a significant water use area and that perhaps there
was potential for use of alternative water sources such as greywater or treated effluent for dust
suppression rather than treated potable water.
There was one isolated suggestion that the drinking water was impure or not clean, and that
therefore the community could not be asked to pay more for water. It was evident, however, that this
person was not aware that the water was being disinfected with chlorine. And yet another raised
concern that they could smell chlorine in the water when the tap was first turned on in the morning,
and this therefore required waste of water to run out the smell. Other issues discussed included the
problem of water hardness and deposits, and the need for fluoridation to protect children’s teeth.
There was general agreement that water restrictions should apply in times of drought.
One participant expressed concern that current waste management practices and the elevated
disposal site near the Airport were threatening groundwater pollution.
As mentioned earlier, the issue of system losses received a great deal of attention. One view was
that since the losses were high, and this was because of the age and nature of the infrastructure, the
Commonwealth should pay for new infrastructure.
It must be emphasised that a number of the strong views mentioned above were raised by two or
three fairly vocal participants and these were not necessarily representative of the perceptions or
views of the wider audience. Nevertheless, among some participants there was a sense or a feeling
that higher water costs were imminent and the Commonwealth was about to make everyone pay the
total cost for water.
The presenters carefully explained their role as providers of information and facilitators for
discussion and awareness raising on water supply issues, but not decision-makers with respect to
pricing and charging structures for water. However, on a number of occasions, participants were
reminded about the reality of the Christmas Island water supply situation in regard to:
• the extremely high throughput of the water supply system in terms of litres/person/day;
• the significant extent of losses across the whole system;
• the nature of the national water industry reforms, particularly in regard to cost recovery
and pay for use pricing;
• the current levels of Commonwealth subsidisation and the need for any subsidisation to
be justified and transparent.
The consultants stressed the need for collection and compilation of metered water consumption -
bulk and consumer meters – as this was essential to the determination of equitable pricing
structures and charges, and to the initiation of loss reduction improvements to the bulk supply
system.
A range of meetings were held with the Shire particularly in relation to the need for monitoring,
inspection and rectification of system losses. Given the apparent extent of these losses, the
Consultants and the Chief Executive of the Shire discussed the idea of an ongoing competition for
island residents to “spot the water leak” in the water supply system, and for participants to be given
the chance of competing for a small prize, such as a Certificate and ‘dinner for two’ in a local
restaurant; something that would not encourage people to vandalise the system in order to reap
some very attractive reward. In this way all residents could take the opportunity to assist the Shire in
locating system losses and hence contribute to a reduction in costs to the Commonwealth and
ratepayer. However, it was important that the Shire was able to respond to all calls and advice from
the community about leaks if such an initiative was to be successful.
As previously mentioned, on at least one occasion presentations were given to Shire Councillors.
On other occasions, issues were taken up with the Shire President who raised them in Council
meetings to obtain feedback and comment on directions. During the last visit to the island
(October/November 1998), the Shire President canvassed the original public discussion paper again
with fellow Councillors and sought comment on the recommendations in the second Progress
Report (ACTEW, 1997b). In follow up discussions with the Shire President, the following key
responses from Councillors were discussed:
• water management and supply issues require ongoing community consultation;
• Council would like to be given the opportunity to consider and respond to consumption-
based pricing structure models during the final determination of what was appropriate for
Christmas Island;
• moves to introduce consumption-based water pricing should be prefaced by an
‘induction’ period; the concept of ‘dummy’ bills as an aid in preparing consumers for such
charging arrangements was supported;
• the system loss/leakage issue and consideration of the resourcing of a rectification
program requires urgent attention, as well as agreement on how this is to occur;
• there was a request to see practical recommendations on other (future) water sources
on Christmas Island (noting that the most obvious and cheapest source of additional
water is from system leakage and water use efficiency);
• there was some concern about the pollution risk for groundwater systems on the island;
one Councillor expressed concern about the practice of disposal of bio-degradable
waste at the Christmas Island solid waste facility, preferring to see only inert waste
disposed of at this point.
Briefings and discussions have also been held with the Christmas Island Administrator and
Administration staff concerning the nature of the consultancy, outcomes and assessment of water
supply problems and needs, and appropriate directions on matters such as pricing, separation of
roles and community involvement. In addition, the provision of comprehensive Progress Reports by
the consultants has provided opportunity to influence operational and management directions on the
island with respect to water supply. These have also facilitated useful discussion with the
Administration and the Shire on the appropriateness of emerging directions in the draft Plan.
Discussions were held with a number of other stakeholders and community representatives during
the course of development of this Plan, including those outlined in the following sub-sections.
9.3.1 Christmas Island Social Worker

Important and useful discussions were held with the Christmas Island Social Worker during the last
two visits to the island (Helen O’Sullivan in May 1997 and Lorraine Johnson in October 1998). A key
focus was the equity aspect of water pricing in the island situation, as well as improved methods for
the Administration and Shire to consult and continue to raise awareness on water issues.
The need to concentrate not only on the water use habits of residential customers but also on
potentially large water using customers on the island, such as CIP and the golf course, was
reinforced on both occasions. Commercial and industrial customers paid a fixed annual charge of
$320, just under double the residential charge, but, like the golf course, could be using at least two
orders of magnitude more water than a residential consumer might use in a year. There was
agreement that the current pricing system was a licence to use or waste water.
Ms O’Sullivan believed that the historical situation with Christmas Island, where in the past it was a
mining town and the mine looked after all aspects of residents’ needs, including free water, was very
relevant to the directions of new policies and approaches to providing and payment for services. In a
sense the Commonwealth had adopted this responsibility for Islander’ needs, but many past benefits
were slowly being eroded; for example, free pharmaceuticals. The Chinese and Malay
communities, who were generally not as ‘well off’ as caucasian Australians on the island, especially
perceived inequities in the way new policies affected them. Hence, any moves to meter water
consumption and seek payment on the basis of quantity consumed would be perceived as just
another erosion of their financial situation.
Helen O’Sullivan stressed also the language barrier problem with these communities. She said that
generally they were not influenced by the mainland media as they tended to watch television
programs from Asia and listen to the Malay or Chinese segments of local radio only. So the
relevance of what might be happening on the mainland, for example in regard to national water
conservation events, or national cost recovery reforms in the water industry generally, was not
known about, disregarded or not seen as important. Any ongoing awareness programs by the Shire
and the Administration would need to recognise this situation.
It was agreed there would be great benefit in the Shire having someone specifically nominated as the
person responsible for water conservation, education and awareness, and even as the avenue for
community reporting water supply system losses. It would be very advantageous for this person to
network and work with the Christmas Island Environmental Officer, Parks Australia, and perhaps
also the CIP Environmental Officer, in progressing work on water conservation and community
education and awareness. There was agreement on the seriousness of water losses in the system
generally and within the properties of consumers. A water conservation officer should also be
available to give consumers simple advice about efficient water use and conservation (e.g. plumbing
and watering matters).
Helen O’Sullivan highlighted the importance of commitment by the Commonwealth to address the
issues relating to water supply (and other island issues) on a long-term basis, rather than annually.
For example, a five year program was relevant to water supply as a foundation for an ongoing viable
enterprise for the Shire. Such a program would be essential if the Shire was to be able to develop
the skills and resources necessary to achieve the policies and goals emerging from the water
industry.
Lorraine Johnson too expressed concern about waste of water at the top end of consumption
sectors, particularly in the context of water scarcity and island remoteness. She reinforced the need
for strong pricing signals in this regard.
Ms Johnson raised the prospect of nominating ‘water’ to the local Arts Council as a possible theme
for the proposed Arts Festival in 1999. Such an initiative, involving the Administration, Shire, School,
community generally, and a number of large water using interests on the island would be a very
useful mechanism for maintaining and improving the profile of water issues and raising awareness
on directions and community ownership.
9.3.2 Australian Mahayana Buddhist Society

Discussions were followed up with Mr Jeffery Tan who was at the public meeting on 5 May 1997. He
thought the water pricing issue needed to be seen and addressed in the bigger political and
economic context; the main concern was cost of living for Christmas Islanders. He reinforced this
by suggesting there needed to be a wider study examining the true costs of living on Christmas
Island compared with the same costs on the mainland, and this then needed to be taken into
account in the setting of water prices.
Mr Tan could see a need to collect water consumption information from the meters being installed
before taking decisions about new water prices.
Another concern was the extent of losses from the town water supply system, with these needing to
be properly addressed and rectified before residents could be asked to pay for water on the basis of
use. In addition there was concern that the Shire would be expected to take over a ‘run down’ water
supply system from the Commonwealth and the community would inherit the huge maintenance
problems.
9.3.3 Ba’hai Group

Contact was made with Mr Tan Kok Peng who also attended the community meeting on 5 May 1997.
He found the meeting very useful and informative. Once again, concern was expressed about
system leakage and the need to fix the leaks in the first instance. He commented that water had
been freely available in the past and any shift to higher pricing would just reinforce the decline in
residents’ net financial means.
He was hopeful that the Shire and the Administration could come up with something which is
acceptable to the community.
9.3.4 Christmas Island Chamber of Commerce

During the May 1997 visit to the island, discussions were held with Mr Ed Turner, Vice President of
the Chamber of Commerce. He made the following observations:
• he was concerned about the ability of the Commonwealth to oversight developments and
progress from distant Canberra;
• Christmas Island was still waiting for the economic development plan;
• it was impossible to buy land which 3 or 4 years previously could have been the turning
point for Christmas Island, but now was too late as the economy was in decline;
• the Shire does not have the resources or technical skills to run a water supply system,
and especially not the capacity to re-develop a system which has not been properly
maintained. He believes the Commonwealth will not give them the resources;
• the water supply system needs to be fixed before the Shire could be expected to operate
it as a viable concern;
• people living on the Island should be subsidised to some extent;
• the Commonwealth owns 70 or more percent of the land and buildings and should start
selling this off. A percentage of the revenue could then be sunk back into refurbishment
of the water supply system before handing to the Shire. This approach would then lead
to lower levels of subsidisation by the Government; and
• in the hardware store where he works, his observation has been that since water meter
installation commenced on Christmas Island, there had been an increase in sales of tap
washers, etc from zero to about 30 per week.
9.3.5 Christmas Island Phosphates

Discussions were held also with CIP (Environmental Officer, Ms Vicki Hood) during the
October/November 1997 visit to the island, particularly, about the principle areas of water use within
the mine’s activities. Her view was that dust suppression on roads in the haulage and delivery areas
was the principal water usage sector for the mine. In the dry period this involved about two tanker
loads per day, probably about 100 kL. It is noted, however, that other sources of information
suggested at least twice this rate, about 4 to 5 tanker loads per day. This water is currently drawn
from the standpipe at the bottom of Irvine Hill Road.
Aside from this activity, water use by the mine was, in her opinion, quite minimal.
Inspection of the phosphate drier area revealed water losses from a number of taps in the area and
highlighted the need for regular water audits for commercial and industrial users. A continual water
loss which the mine had complained about originates from a stormwater system outside the Power
House property and exits from a large stormwater sump in the drier area. This was causing a
nuisance as well as a long standing, continual water loss, probably in the order of 0.25 L/s.
At that time, CIP paid only one annual charge of $305 for water.
9.3.6 Islamic Council

During the October/November 1997 island visit, the Shire undertook to distribute the Water Issues
leaflet to members of this group and to return comments to the consultants.
9.4 Ongoing Consultation and Education

9.4.1 Context
The issue of public consultation and education is highlighted as one of the five key areas for attention
under the COAG Strategic Framework for Water Reform, with as much importance as other key
matters such as institutional reform, water pricing and cost recovery. The agreed Water Reform
agenda seeks:
• adherence to the principle of public consultation by government agencies and the service
deliverer;
• an embarking on consultative processes in relation to water reform initiatives being
applied in particular jurisdictions – for example, on user pays pricing reform and water
allocation.
Generic milestones seek a demonstration of the above requirements.
9.4.2 Approach
Clearly, it would be unfortunate to lose the momentum of community interaction and awareness
raising initiated as part of the Plan development process under this Consultancy. The need for
ongoing consultation and public meetings by the Shire, as part of its role of water service provider,
and by the Administration because of its policy, financial and administrative roles in the Territory
requires a continuing, coordinated response. This is particularly relevant to Chinese and Malay
communities, where special efforts are required to raise awareness and knowledge of the issues
and principles involved in cost recovery and charging for water.
The Administration and the Shire need to advise the public of their intended plans and directions for
the future; with a view to obtaining ongoing involvement and reasonable levels of support and
understanding for changes to water pricing and charging approaches.
Since the Consultants’ visit in May 1997, it is noted that the Shire endeavoured to raise the profile of
water conservation with the community, particularly in the summer of 1997/98. The Manager
Technical Services adopted this role. Review of articles and water use information in the Islander
Newsletter, together with positive feedback from stakeholders to the consultants, suggests that this
role had been taken up with a good level of motivation. Unfortunately, due to the departure of the
previous incumbent of the Manager Technical Services position, this activity had abated by the time
the Consultants conducted their third visit. The Administration also noted that this activity had virtually
ceased and was essential if a user pays water pricing system was to be introduced. The then Shire
President undertook to resurrect the function but has since resigned from the Council.
As previously suggested, there is a need for promotion of water use efficiency and conservation to
be a permanent, ongoing arrangement, including the provision of advice on water use and the
conduct of simple water audits or inspections to rectify bad water use practices. Billing of
customers should be used as an opportunity to provide printed material covering water issues on the
island, and reminding customers of water conservation contacts in the Shire and Administration.
Water conservation needs to be conducted in cooperation with a range of other key people on the
island, including the Christmas Island Environment Officer, Parks Australia and large water user
groups such as CIP.
In addition, feedback to the community on general trends in metered water consumption patterns
together with information on changes to pricing and water charging arrangements are also essential
aspects of this activity.
The ongoing consultative and community education role should be integrated with the demand
management strategy (refer section 7.6), and also identified under possible conditions pertaining to
future Administration licensing arrangements for bulk water extraction by the Shire.
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 Conclusions
Legislation
on Christmas Island are: the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI); the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 (WA) (CI); and the Services and Utilities Ordinance 1996 (CI).
Under the existing arrangements on Christmas Island, aside from the possible need for additional
regulations, legislation is considered sufficient to achieve the basic objectives for provision of water
services. However, present arrangements are unsatisfactory due to the inadequate separation of
the basic functions of water resource management and protection, supply service provision and
price-setting. The WMP calls for a formal transfer of the function of water service provider to the
Shire, a clearer definition of the groundwater protection and allocation responsibilities, and the
establishment of more appropriate water price setting and charging arrangements.
In the short term, during a proposed Commonwealth, Administration and Shire Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) transfer period, existing legislation is sufficient to cover management,
protection, use and pricing of groundwater on the island. However, new regulations would facilitate
water allocation through licensing and the application of licence conditions.
In preparation for the complete separation of roles, further review of the latest Western Australia
laws relating to the Water and Rivers Commission, the Water Corporation and the Office of Water
Regulation will be necessary. New legislation will be required to establish the Shire as the water
service utility, and for pricing control by the Administration over the setting of charges by the Shire.
A co-ordinated Commonwealth approach is desirable for the progression of national water reform
agenda initiatives across all External Territories.
Administrative arrangements
Important considerations relate to the national water reform agenda just mentioned, which is being
progressed by all Governments in Australia under the COAG Strategic Framework for Water Reform
(COAG, 1994). In large measure, these reforms have been initiated by the Commonwealth, and
hence heighten the importance of implementation of the agreed policies on Christmas Island.
Four options for separation of the water service provider function have been canvassed in this WMP
and an earlier progress report (ACTEW, 1997b). It is concluded that the Shire should take up this
function fully, at least in the short to medium term. In addition, it is considered important to retain a
degree of separation from the resource management, water allocation and environment protection
functions, which should be fulfilled by the Administration with advice from other sources (e.g. Parks
Australia, Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) and other outside technical expertise).
Regulation of water prices should rest with the Commonwealth.
The Shire, which is nominally the water supply authority at present, does not exercise proper control
of the development and maintenance of water supply assets. It does not have title to land and
assets. In addition, the Shire does not have the necessary technical and financial resources to
adequately undertake such carriage. The Shire requires an engineer with the appropriate skills to
lead in the management of the water supply system as well as other Shire service assets.
The Shire should have its future clearly identified with respect to the complete range of water supply
responsibilities, so that there is some certainty and an identified need for it to ‘get the house in order’
pending the transfer of full water supply business activities. Lack of ownership of the water supply
asset, as well as lack of responsibility and control of funds, leads to lack of commitment and
accountability; which in turn can be reflected in the loss of integrity, state of repair and leakage of the
supply system. Needs exist for a thorough review of water supply infrastructure, for an ongoing
leakage control program and for an effective asset management system. These steps will lead to
requirements for further funding in some logical, priority order.
It is recognised that the range of legal and administrative arrangements required to achieve these
directions are not able to be put in place immediately. However, expeditious action to document and
reach agreement on the intended future arrangements is critical for planning and implementation of
such initiatives. An MOU between the Commonwealth and the Shire would be a positive way of
documenting agreed directions, processes and timeframes, leading to a final allocation of roles and
responsibilities. Aspects proposed to be included in the MOU are covered in section 3 of this WMP.
A critical element is timing. It is suggested that a timeframe of two to three years should be adopted
to complete all the arrangements and effect the full transfer of responsibility. However, in relation to
pricing, it is considered that the introduction of user-pays water charges should commence much
sooner – preferably by the year 2000 - using existing regulations to set charges during the MOU
period.
Groundwater Investigations and Monitoring
The GIM program was an integral part of the overall WMP development process. As noted
previously, full details of the program are presented in the accompanying Groundwater Investigations
and Monitoring Report (ACTEW, 1999) and are summarised in section 4 of this Plan. The findings
from the investigations and information gained from the monitoring have been used, as appropriate,
in other parts of this Plan.
Key results from the GIM program are:
• A substantial fresh groundwater system (basal aquifer) was found to the north of the
Smithson Bight area at and below sea level. This groundwater could be developed in the
future by drilling production boreholes to target depths just below sea level. Based on
monitoring results, there is unlikely to be freshwater within about 500 m of the coastline.
If production holes are drilled, they should be located at distances of 1,000 m or more
from the coastline and pumped at rates 3-5 L/s per borehole. It may be possible to alter
these rates after a period of monitoring of the salinity response within the groundwater,
as measured at salinity monitoring boreholes. A salinity monitoring borehole should be
drilled close to each production borehole.
• A limited amount of perched groundwater (above volcanic rock) was found in the north
east part of the island. The area around one monitoring borehole in this area (BH8) has
potential and could be further proven by additional drilling and test pumping.
• The estimated average annual recharge for Christmas Island is 50% of average annual
rainfall or about 1,000 mm. Over the area of the island where fresh groundwater is
present, the average annual recharge is about 100 gigalitres, which is equivalent to a
flow of about 3,200 L/s. The estimated sustainable yield of the groundwater system is
half the available recharge or 1,600 L/s. Average and estimated minimum flows at
present sources are much less than this potential yield (5% and 2% of the estimated
sustainable yield, respectively).
• A pilot study using Landsat satellite imagery was not successful at locating freshwater
outflows along the coastline. Imagery obtained with sensors (on satellite or aeroplane)
having a thermal resolution of better than 0.1°C may be more useful than the resolution
available for this study (0.5°C). However, the method of using remote imagery appears
to be of limited use, as the mixing of freshwater and seawater within the caves and
fissures along the coastline results in outflows which are already quite diffuse even
where freshwater outflows are known to occur.
• For Jedda Cave, a simple formula (model) was derived to predict flows for a given month
based on the previous 5 months rainfall recorded at the Jedda raingauge. This could be
applied only in low flow periods when the flow is between about 50 and 20 L/s, and the
5 month rainfall is less than about 250 mm. Based on analysis of lows in 1997 and
1998, the flow response in Jedda Cave is lagged between 2 and 3 months behind Jedda
rainfall. A more complex (non-linear) model was developed for Jedda for higher flow
periods. This model can estimate the current month’s flow from the average of monthly
rainfall for the previous 2 months and the average monthly flow at Jedda for preceding
month. This model should be used with caution as it can under-estimate or over-
estimate actual flows and should be refined as more data becomes available in the
future. In the future, similar models could be developed for the springs at and near
Waterfall and for those at Ross Hill Gardens. The Waterfall springs will firstly require the
installation of flow monitoring equipment and collection of data over at least 12 months.
• A simple classification of the island’s fresh groundwater into perched aquifers (above
sea level) and basal aquifers (in contact with seawater) is presented and summarised in
a map (refer Figure 2 in section 4.7). This map should be considered preliminary as
much of the data has been inferred. Based on limited data, particularly in the Smithson
Bight area, it is assumed that the basal groundwater within 500 m of the coastline is
likely to have a salinity level higher than freshwater due to mixing with seawater,
particularly during extended dry periods. The actual distance may vary from 500 m
depending on local differences in permeability, especially if volcanic rock is present
below sea level near the coastline (e.g. parts of the eastern and western coastlines). For
a given location, the position of the freshwater/seawater boundary will vary according to
preceding rainfall and hence recharge conditions.
500 m of the coastline because there is a strong possibility that this groundwater would
be brackish in extended dry periods, and even if it was not, the action of pumping is likely
to induce seawater intrusion.
• The groundwater resources of Christmas Island are rated as having a high to very high
vulnerability to contamination. The areas of high and very high vulnerability, correspond
approximately to basal and perched groundwater aquifers (refer Figure 3 in section 4.7.
Strict controls over potential pollution sources, particularly waste disposal sites, are
absolutely essential. In particular, planning procedures should take account of the
vulnerability of groundwater when siting waste disposal areas, urban areas with
associated sewerage and stormwater systems, and other potential sources of pollution.
It is recommended that a ‘zero discharge’ policy is the most appropriate for all potential
pollutants over the whole island.
• A water monitoring program was developed during the course of the WMP process to
enable vital water resources information to be collected at key sites, including some of
the presently developed sources and some potential sources. These sites were Jedda
Cave, Ross Hill Gardens Springs, Daniel Roux Cave and the water resources monitoring
boreholes installed during the project. Unfortunately, it was not possible to establish
monitoring systems at the very important sites of Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones
Springs. In addition to the water resources monitoring sites, flow meters were installed
at key sites on major pipelines, particularly at all sources (Jedda, Jane Up, Ross Hill
Gardens and Waterfall). Water quality information was obtained at water resources
sites and pollution monitoring boreholes, and a program for ongoing monitoring has been
prepared. Training was provided to two staff from the Shire during the course of the
project. Data processing and analysis was undertaken by Ecowise Environmental and
key results reported to the Shire during the course of the Project.
• It is essential to continue the water monitoring program established during the project as
a long term activity for the rational assessment, development and management of the
island’s water resources. In the foreseeable future, the current procedure for data
processing, analysis and storage should be continued. This requires data to be
for these tasks to be undertaken.
• It is recommended that a formal reporting system be established whereby quarterly
reports are prepared by the external agency and submitted to the agency responsible for
water resources management on the island. This would be similar to procedures
already implemented in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
• The annual cost of the water monitoring program can be split into three categories. The
cost of the first category (data collection and initial processing in Christmas Island) can
be obtained from the Shire. The cost of the second category (data analysis and
reporting by an external water resources agency) is $18,500, which includes a

recommended inspection visit (maximum of one week) to the island at two year intervals.
The cost of the third category (equipment repairs and periodic replacement) is $3,500.
Groundwater Quality Standards
Drinking (potable) water should meet the requirements of Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
Based on available data, the water quality of perched groundwater on Christmas Island meets the
requirements of these guidelines except for hardness. It is noted that the guideline for hardness is
not based on health considerations but is more an aesthetic or convenience consideration (i.e
related to scaling in pipes, water heating elements and other fittings).
Other physical and chemical quality parameters (e.g. salinity as measured by conductivity and
chloride ion, pH, turbidity and common specific ions) all meet guideline values.
it flows. In future, representative samples should be obtained from selected Smithson Bight
monitoring boreholes and tested for a range of parameters. This should become part of an annual
water monitoring component.
Samples from two pollution monitoring boreholes at the rubbish disposal/landfill site and Jedda Cave
were tested for chemical pollution (hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCBs, nutrients and heavy metals) in
mid-1998. No sign of pollution was found except for a value of lead at twice the Guideline value in
one monitoring borehole. A retest should be obtained to ascertain if this level persists.
Samples obtained in October 1998 from Jedda Cave, Waterfall Spring, the Ross Hill Gardens pump
station and the Daniel Roux Cave gusher were tested for a range of heavy metals, including lead and
arsenic, and found to have levels below the test level of determination.
An ongoing monitoring program is required for the potential chemical pollution at the monitoring
The bacteriological quality of the (chlorinated) water in the water supply distribution system has
generally been good in recent years, although some samples showing positive counts for all
parameters tested (total coliforms, E. Coli, faecal streptococci). In particular, occasional samples
level of E. Coli, these were obviously non-acceptable tests. As the bacteriological quality of water
supply can directly impact on public health, it is essential that the water delivered to consumers
continues to be disinfected. The chlorination systems at Jedda and Waterfall need to be properly
operated and maintained and regular chlorine residual tests need to be continued.
A summary of development and other options for increasing the supply of water for beneficial use on
the island is provided in this WMP (refer section 6 and Table 2). The existing developed sources
(Jedda and Waterfall) provide ample supply for current population levels and environmental needs.
Water from these sources should be maximised and utilised in a sustainable manner before any
investment to develop new sources is considered. Improvements to the Waterfall Spring should be
undertaken as a priority item, followed by improvements to the other two springs (Freshwater and
Jones) that feed the Waterfall pumping system. As a next priority, the secondary sources of Jane
Up and Ross Hill Gardens should be utilised to the fullest extent. If additional demand needs to be
met, then the spring flows from Harrison’s and Hewan’s Springs at Ross Hill Gardens should be
utilised.
Parallel with these activities, effective demand management (water pricing and education) and
ongoing leakage control programs should be implemented. The leakage control program should
include repair of known leaks and continual detection and repair of future leaks. It is noted here that
such programs require a long term commitment and, as discussed in Section 3, the capacity of the
water supply authority should be strengthened to ensure that this can be achieved.
All of the above activities require no new source development. While ever the cost of reducing water
loss, or the cost of conserving water amongst consumers, is less than the amortised per kilolitre
cost of developing a new source, then these avenues will remain the cheapest source of water and
should be pursued in preference to developing new sources.
If additional water is required beyond the capacity of current sources, the next most suitable options
would be either groundwater development in the Smithson Bight area or development of the Daniel
Roux Cave gusher. The development costs of the gusher would be lower per unit of water supplied
but there are a number of other issues (refer section 6.4.4), which would need to be discussed and
resolved. Table 2 does not account for operating costs and depreciation on assets, in comparing
options. A more detailed economic appraisal would be required to calculate total costs.
Investigation of water sources other than groundwater, including rainwater collection tanks, was
beyond the scope of this Plan. However, rainwater collection was briefly considered as there are a
number of significant benefits with such collection systems. Rainwater collection tanks can
decrease the demand on the public water supply system during normal periods and increase the
security of supply at normal times (e.g. people can access this source if the public water supply is
temporarily unavailable for a variety of reasons). They also allow consumers to manage their own
water quality (salinity and hardness is lower and bacteria can be controlled by either boiling or
filtering). There is merit in further considering rainwater collection systems as part of the overall
water management on the island. There could be potential for implementation through a subsidy
scheme for private houses and a government funded scheme for government controlled houses.
Water allocation and charging policy
Consistent with the intent of the ‘water allocation’ milestones under the national water reform
agenda, activities and responsibilities concerning water allocation on Christmas Island should
embrace resource investigation and assessment, allocation of water for consumer use and
environmental needs, and the licensing of any private use. Summary points and conclusions on
each of these aspects, and on the issue of water pricing, are provided below.
Water resources investigation and assessment
There is sufficient information on some existing water sources to make reasonable estimates of
sustainable yields and provide for water allocation to meet environmental and community needs.
Exceptions, however, are the Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones Spring sources, which were not
included in the investigations during this project due to ongoing difficulties over lease responsibilities
between the Commonwealth and Christmas Island Resort (CIR). It is essential that monitoring
systems be installed and operated at the three above-mentioned water sources. On-going
monitoring at these and other sites is essential for the long-term management of the island’s water
resources.
In conducting its groundwater management, allocation and environment protection functions, it is
important that the Administration periodically call on technical expertise. Provided water supply
system efficiency is improved and demand management steps taken, developed water sources are
considered sufficient to meet the reasonable demands of around twice the present population.
Environmental needs
The skills and expertise of Parks Australia and the Environment Officer should be used to address
environmental flow requirements, provision for which needs to be made by the Administration as a
priority. Arrangements need to be formalised and documented to advise the Shire of the
environmental flow requirements at sources. Preferably, these flows should be automated in the
medium term.
Allocation for water supply, and demand management
The current administrative arrangements on Christmas Island, which do not separate roles
sufficiently, preclude the effective operation of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI)
as far as water allocation functions are concerned. Explicit separation of roles and moves to
formalise the Shire’s responsibilities as the water utility, would assist in the achievement of national
water reform objectives on Christmas Island.
Given appropriately formulated regulations under the above Act, this legislation would be appropriate
to regulate bulk water entitlements, to provide for environmental flows, and to require essential
system and water use efficiency improvements on Christmas Island. A similar approach would
need to be adopted in relation to any private water sourcing activities on the island.
An effective demand management strategy needs to be developed in consultation with the local
community. The directions, content and resourcing aspects of the demand management strategy
should be integrated with the MOU between the Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire.
Water pricing policy and charging arrangements
The intent of milestones under the COAG national water reform agenda is that rural water supplies
are economically and environmentally sustainable, that users receive clear price signals through
consumption-based tariffs, and that cost recovery provisions apply. A target of year 2001 has been
set (ARMCANZ, 1996). Where cross-subsidies continue to exist, they should be made transparent
(e.g. under community service obligation (CSO) arrangements).
The present delivery of the water service on Christmas Island lacks the degree of ‘commerciality’
called for under the national water reform agenda. Water supply system losses (primarily leakage)
are higher than ‘acceptable practice’ levels in the water industry and require rectification.
The median domestic water consumption level on Christmas island is in the order of 390 kL/year
and average consumption in the order of 540 kL/year. This can be compared with mainland
Australia where average residential consumption is in the order of 350 kL/year. There is a minority of
consumers at the top end of consumption using as much water as is consumed by the remaining
majority of residential users. As illustrated elsewhere in this WMP (refer section 7.8.5) domestic
consumers who use some 100 kL/year pay the same amount as consumers using some
2,000 kL/year.
In the commercial sector, some 20% of consumers use 40 kL/year or less and pay $320 each,
compared with the highest consumption level, two orders of magnitude higher , who pay the same
charge of $320. The public sector is even more inequitable, with top level consumption being nearly
three orders of magnitude higher than consumption amongst the bottom 20% of consumers, but for
the same annual charge of $462. These anomalies will pertain until there is a consumption-based
pricing signal given in the water charging arrangements.
It is noteworthy that unfettered water consumption as well as excessive system losses lead to very
high operating costs for the pipelines and pumps involved. Pump failure and wear will be higher than
a more normal situation of demand and supply. Sourcing and supplying water on the island involves
high electricity costs that are subsidised. Without a water pricing structure based on payment for
use, and without an onus of ‘commerciality’ on the Shire, excessive consumption will continue
amongst a small segment of the community and system losses will continue.
It should also be noted that system losses provide the most obvious and least cost source of water
to meet growth in demand. If the system losses are stemmed, then essentially, this additional water
will be available from current sources (e.g. Jedda) for future growth in water demand.
Now that consumer meters are installed, consumption-based pricing needs to be introduced without
delay. Preferably, a fixed charge or connection fee should apply, supported by a consumption-based
tariff (or tariffs) from the first kilolitre used. Consumption-based pricing models examined in this
report demonstrate the advantages of water usage tariffs in registering annual bills, commensurate
with levels of water usage. Clearly, top level consumers will require early warning of the impacts of
annual water bills under a user-pays system. A community ‘induction’ period would seem highly
appropriate.
Six pricing models - and their potential revenue generation - were reviewed (see section 7.8.5 and
Table 5 of this WMP). Model 6, involving a fixed charge of $130 and consumption tariffs of $0.15/kL
to 355 kilolitres and $0.70/kL above 355 kilolitres per year, responds best to the goals listed in this
WMP.
Groundwater protection requirements
importance to the local island community. Significant costs could be associated with the removal of
any contamination of groundwater. The most likely and possibly largest risk is posed by leachates
from rubbish disposal. Other possible sources of pollution include: leaking underground storage
tanks and pipelines; chemical usage; pollution from sewage and stormwater; mining activities and
wastes; and sea water intrusion.
During the island visit in October 1998, it was apparent that moves were afoot to site a new waste
disposal facility in an excavated and mined pit-area near the Airport. Advice has been given
previously that this location is inappropriate because of proximity to groundwater. Present
knowledge continues to point to a preferred solution for a waste disposal site away from potential
freshwater areas ie to where impacts of groundwater pollution are low - South Point is still
considered the best, even if a space port is located there.
As an important component of the WMP, groundwater protection measures should include:
• land use controls, including total or partial restriction of development in areas which may
impact on vulnerable groundwater resources,
• use of effluent discharge standards, and
• the control of storage and transmission of chemical substances.
activity which may pollute the environment. There is a need to exercise the ‘precautionary principle’
with respect to waste disposal where there is scientific uncertainty about the potential for
groundwater pollution. Licensing should require precautions by operators, including the drilling and
regular monitoring of pollution monitoring boreholes. Strict guidelines and procedures concerning
the locations of chemical and other substances near known or potential water resources are
required. Best practice environment protection measures, including leachate containment and
treatment, are required.
Given the shortage of land on the island, the restrictions on sea dumping, and the costs of back-
loading materials to the mainland, it is important that waste for landfill be minimised and that every
cubic metre of waste landfill space is used efficiently. This requires appropriate planning, design and
funding. Issues of waste separation, incineration of hospital waste, and alternative arrangements for
handling toxic and hazardous waste need to be carefully addressed.
Ongoing monitoring for pollution is as an essential ingredient to water supply security. If pollution
was detected at a water source (e.g. Jedda, Waterfall), then the source would need to be closed at
least until re-testing was undertaken. Where pollution continued, the island would have a significant
water supply problem. Alternative sources would need to be brought on line and remedial steps
taken to decontaminate the groundwater. The possibility of such difficult and expensive actions
underlines the real need to prevent contamination of water resources.
Community involvement and awareness
(ESD) and is reinforced by COAG’s national water reform agenda. Within this context, and under
the terms of the brief, community involvement was adopted as a most important aspect.
During visits to the island, contact was maintained with successive Administration staff, as well as
with the CEO, Shire President and relevant employees of the Shire. These meetings provided
opportunity for briefings and discussions on the nature of the work, outcomes and assessment of
water supply problems and needs, and appropriate directions on key matters. The provision of
comprehensive progress reports by the Consultants (ACTEW, 1997a; 1997b) has provided
opportunity to influence water operations and management directions on the island. These also
facilitated useful discussions on the appropriateness of emerging directions in the draft WMP.
During the October/November 1996 visit, meetings and discussions focussed on a draft public
discussion paper ‘Christmas Island Water Management - Issues for Community Discussion’, which
was finalised by the Consultants in December 1996. Local radio was utilised to ‘air’ key emerging
issues for the island community. Following this visit, the leaflet ‘Christmas Island Water
Management - Summary of Issues for Community Discussion’, was prepared and translated into
Chinese and Malay versions. All of this material was circulated to various stakeholders and
community representatives for comment, together with invitations to a public meeting.
The public meeting, in May 1997, provided an opportunity to present key elements of a draft
Christmas Island WMP and to stimulate discussion. Interest was shown in the issues of system
loss, water waste and water pricing. Comparison with consumption patterns on the mainland were
made, while others questioned the appropriateness of comparisons because Christmas Island was
isolated and had different lifestyle, tradition, cost of living, etc. Members of the Chinese community
indicated there was concern about ‘user-pays’ for water, suggesting there should always be
subsidisation of living costs.
Meetings and discussions were held with a range of other government officials, and representatives
of community and private organisations. Their views and suggestions are recorded in this WMP.
The issue of public consultation and education is one of the five key areas for attention under the
national water reform agenda. Clearly, it would be unfortunate to lose the momentum of community
interaction and awareness raising on Christmas Island. There is a need for ongoing consultation
and public meetings by the Shire, as part of its role of water service provider, and by the
Administration because of its policy, financial and administrative role. This is particularly relevant to
the Chinese and Malay communities, where special efforts are required to raise awareness and
knowledge of the issues.
The Administration and Shire need to advise the public of intended plans and directions; with a view
to obtaining ongoing involvement and reasonable levels of support and understanding for changes to
water pricing policy and user-pays charging. There is a need for the promotion of water use
efficiency and conservation to be a permanent, ongoing arrangement. This includes the provision of
advice on water use and the conduct of simple water audits or inspections. Water supply billing
times provide an opportunity to promote water issues and educational material.
Water conservation should be conducted by the Shire in cooperation with a range of other key
people on the island. The ongoing consultative and community education role should be integrated
with the demand management strategy, included in the proposed MOU, and preferably identified also
in future Administration licensing arrangements for bulk water extractions.
10.2 Recommendations
Recommendations emerging in this Plan, in response to the items listed in the original brief and the
findings of the Consultants, are given below. The suggested agency or agencies to implement each
recommendation are shown in bold and brackets.
1. Recognise the importance of the national water reform agenda and its applicability to Christmas
Island. Act to achieve:
• formal transfer of the water service provider role, function and infrastructure assets to
the Shire of Christmas Island;
• a clearer definition of the groundwater protection and water allocation responsibilities of
the Christmas Island Administration; and
• the establishment of appropriate water pricing regulation.
(Commonwealth and Administration)
2. Develop an MOU between the Commonwealth, the Administration and the Shire, covering issues
identified in this WMP (refer section 3), and including:
• relevant COAG objectives and milestones, especially year 2001 timeline;
• review of water supply infrastructure and establishment of an asset management
system;
• ongoing leakage control program;
• system refurbishment program;
• demand management strategy (including ‘water pricing’ - see next recommendation);
• the roles of the Administration and Shire on matters covered in MOU (e.g. water charging
and community consultation);
• administrative, legislative, financial and resourcing targets and arrangements (e.g.
engineering skills, Commonwealth CSO levels); and
• timing considerations.

3. In relation to water pricing:
• establish and introduce a user-pays charging system for water on Christmas Island;
• adopt the preferred water charging model in this report, or similar, for testing and
introduction;
• adopt a three to six month ‘induction’ period for introduction of the new water charging
system;
• ensure the Shire database spreadsheet of metered water consumption is continually
reviewed for accuracy and updated;
• ensure community induction addresses matters identified in this WMP (section 7.8.5);
• test the preferred water charging model in the lead up to the induction period, to ensure
that equity and revenue goals will be realised;
• commence introduction of the preferred water charging model in 1999-2000; and
• cover the above-listed steps and objectives for water pricing in the MOU.
4. During the role/responsibility ‘transfer phase’ (MOU period), maximise the use of present
legislation to effect water resources management, allocation and protection, water supply service
provision and pricing regulation. To facilitate this:
• introduce regulations as necessary and appropriate under the Rights in Water and
Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) (CI), to provide for water allocation through licensing and the
application of conditions, for example, in relation to water restrictions during drought or
other emergencies; (Commonwealth, Administration) and
• use the existing Services and Utilities Ordinance 1996 (CI) to effect new water charges
and pricing control in the interim, until new utility and pricing legislation is prepared by the
end of the MOU transfer period - see next recommendation. (Administration)
5. Review present Western Australia laws relating to the Water and Rivers Commission, the Water
Corporation and the Office of Water Regulation, in preparation for the complete separation of
roles, and introduce the necessary legislative changes required to effect these arrangements by
the end of the ‘transfer phase’. (Commonwealth)
6. In relation to groundwater resource monitoring and protection:
• Continue the water monitoring program established during development of this Plan, and
adopt additional recommended components (refer section 4.8), as a long term activity for
the rational assessment, development and management of the island’s water resources.
• The current procedure for data processing, analysis and back-up storage of the water
monitoring data should be continued. In the foreseeable future, this requires data to be
for these tasks to be undertaken. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• Establish a formal reporting system whereby quarterly reports are prepared by the
external agency and submitted to the agency responsible for water resources
management on the island. This would be similar to procedures already implemented in
the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The estimated average annual costs are $18,500 for
analysis, reporting and a monitoring visit at two year intervals. (Commonwealth,
Administration)
• Budget for monitoring equipment replacements at an average annual cost of $3,500
(details are provided in Table 19, section 7).
• Predicted flows for Jedda from the rainfall-flow models developed during this Project
should be checked against future monitored flows at Jedda and the results reported in
the proposed quarterly monitoring reports. Suggested modifications should be
recommended.
• Purchase a small diameter water level sensor and data logger for monitoring selected
salinity monitoring boreholes (approximate cost of $5,000). (Administration, Shire)
• Purchase a replacement portable computer for water monitoring (approximate cost of
$3,000). (Administration, Shire)
• The survey levels on the tops of boreholes BH4 and BH5 should be checked.
(Administration)
• Periodic flow data should be collected at the data loggers on the three key distribution
tanks (Drumsite, George Fam and Hospital) to check the status of the pipe systems fed
by these tanks. (Administration, Shire)
• Collect and analyse water samples every 12 months from the pollution monitoring
boreholes at the current rubbish disposal area, nearby water sources (Jedda, Waterfall,
Ross Hill Gardens) and selected Smithson Bight monitoring boreholes. Analyse these
for water chemistry and potential contaminants. Ensure similar monitoring practice is
adopted for approved new waste disposal sites. Note the importance of monitoring for
pollutants and the procedures required in the event of pollution of an existing water
supply source. (Administration, Shire)
• Adopt a salinity value (in electrical conductivity units) of 1,500 µS/cm as an upper limit for
freshwater groundwater, with a desirable objective of 1,000 µS/cm. (Commonwealth,
Administration)
• If additional water resources development is undertaken in the future, install adequate
monitoring systems and allocate human resources to ensure that the impacts of
extraction on, and possible pollution of, the water resources are assessed.
• Employ land use controls, waste disposal restrictions and best waste management
practice, together with the licensing provisions of the environmental protection legislation,
to protect vulnerable groundwater resources. It is recommended that a ‘zero discharge’
policy is the most appropriate for all potential groundwater pollutants over the whole
island. (Commonwealth, Administration, Shire)
• Adopt waste reduction at source, and reuse/recycling practices in the interests of
groundwater protection in particular and sustainable development in general.
(Commonwealth, Administration, Shire)
• A capability to undertake an ongoing programme of ‘leakage control’ (comprising both
leak detection and rectification) should be developed and sustained within the water
supply authority. Equipment should be purchased and staff should be trained in the
necessary techniques for leakage detection. The budget needs to allow for such work
as well as the ongoing repairs of pipelines as leaks are detected. (Commonwealth,
7. In relation to groundwater quality standards:
• An ongoing monitoring program is required for the testing of samples for basic water
chemistry and potential chemical pollution at the monitoring boreholes and water supply
sources. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• The chlorination systems at Jedda and Waterfall need to be properly operated and
maintained and regular chlorine residual tests need to be continued. (Shire)
8. In relation to groundwater development options:
• Improve the water collection system at Waterfall Spring, as a first priority, followed by
improvements to Freshwater Spring and Jones Spring. (Commonwealth)
• Recognise that existing water sources are sufficient to meet the needs of around twice
the current population, provided water supply system efficiency is improved and demand
management steps taken. (Commonwealth, Administration and Shire)
• Maximise use of the current sources (Jedda, Waterfall and then Jane Up followed by
Ross Hill Gardens) and implement effective demand management measures including
an ongoing leak control program, before developing new sources. (Commonwealth,

• Undertake a more detailed assessment of the next most feasible option which is either
Smithson Bight groundwater development or Daniel Roux Cave gusher collection, taking
account of significant benefits and issues related to the latter option. (Commonwealth)
500 m of the coastline. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• If production holes are drilled in the Smithson Bight area, they should be located at
distances of 1,000 m or more from the coastline and initially pumped at rates 3-5 L/s per
borehole. (Commonwealth, Administration)
• Two investigation holes should be drilled between BN1 and WB30, south-west of
Jane Up, to further assess the basal groundwater potential. This drilling should be done
at the same time as possible future production and monitoring borehole drilling.
• Undertake a supplementary study of the feasibility of introducing household rainwater
collection systems. (Commonwealth, Administration and Shire)
9. In relation to groundwater allocation and sustainable use:
• continue to periodically utilise external technical expertise in the monitoring and
assessment of developed groundwater sources. (Administration)
• use Parks Australia and the Christmas Island Environment Officer to address
environmental flow requirements, and ensure that these flows are provided for by the
Shire (water supply service provider) as a priority. (Administration)
• install, operate and maintain monitoring systems at Waterfall, Freshwater and Jones
Springs sources near CIR. (Administration, Shire)
• license water allocation and require reporting from Shire and private operators.
(Administration, Shire)
10. In relation to community involvement and awareness:
• ensure there is ongoing community consultation in regard to the water reform initiatives
underway on Christmas Island. (Shire and Administration)
• develop suitable administrative arrangements to ensure the water conservation role is
performed by the Shire (water service provider) with the support of other stakeholders,
including the Administration, the Christmas Island Environment Officer, Parks Australia,
CIP and CIR. (Administration, Shire, other Christmas Island agencies)
• develop the capacity to provide simple conservation advice and water use checks for
customers. (Shire)
• provide ongoing advice to the community on water use patterns, derived from ongoing
metered water consumption data. (Shire)
• integrate the Shire’s ongoing consultative and community education role with the
demand management strategy. (Shire)
11. Adopt a co-ordinated approach across all of the External Territories in implementation of the
national water reform agenda. (Commonwealth - for consideration)
12. Update the WMP as a written document at intervals of approximately 5 years. (Administration
and Shire)
11. ACTION PLAN

The Action Plan to implement the recommendations in section 10 is summarised in Table 6. The
agency or agencies nominated to action each recommendation, or associated with
recommendations, are abbreviated as follows:
• C’wealth (the Commonwealth acting through the Territories Office of the Department of
Transport and Regional Services);
• Admin (the Christmas Island Administration);
• Shire (the Shire of Christmas Island);
• EO (the Environment Officer)
• Parks (Parks Australia).
Table 6 Action Plan
No Action Timing Action Agency

1 Affirmative action to achieve water reform agenda on CI. Asap, ongoing C’wealth/
By 2000 Admin
- Transfer water service provider role and functions
- Define/adopt water protection/allocation responsibilities See actions 4/5
- Introduce water pricing regulation controls 1999-2000
2 Development of MOU covering identified issues. By 2000 C’wealth/
Includes: Admin/Shire
- Leakage control program; Immediate
- Asset management system; By 2000
- Funding for system refurbishment (set out steps in MOU); Agree by 2000
- Fund and recruit engineering skills for Shire; Asap
- Agree and document CSOs (plus reduction targets); By 2000
- Demand management strategy (see also 3,4,7 below). By 2000
3 Introduction of user-pays water pricing policy & charging. In 1999- 2000 C’wealth/
Admin/
- Document steps including ‘induction’ plan (in MOU);
By 2000 Shire
- Test preferred pricing model pre-induction period;
By end 1999
- Database of properties/metered water consumption;
Asap
- Community induction, education, audits, dummy bills.
By end 1999
4 Introduction of regulations to licence water allocation. Asap C’wealth/
- Bulk water licence conditions (envt flows, emergencies); By 2000 Admin
- Water use efficiency goals in licence conditions. Year 2000+

- Use of present legislation to effect price control & setting. Now to 2001
5 Review of most recent WA water laws and preparation of Effective by C’wealth/

similar statutes for CI application at end of MOU period. 2001 Admin
6 Groundwater monitoring, development and protection. Ongoing C’wealth/

Ongoing Admin/
- Continuation of water resource monitoring program;
Shire
- Fund ongoing analysis and reporting function; Early 2000
- External advice and assessment (see Action 7 below); Quarterly
- Procurement of replacement/new equipment; Early 2000
- Fund ongoing equipment replacement program; Ongoing
- Resourcing and equipment of new source development; As required
- Controls on potentially polluting land use or activities; Ongoing
- Pollution monitoring borehole sampling; Annual
- Christmas Island waste minimisation; Asap & ongoing
7 Allocation/sustainable use of groundwater sources

- Source monitoring/technical expert advisory support; Quarterly Admin
- Environmental flows advice; Regular rpts Parks/EO
- Monitoring systems for sources near CIR; Asap (+funds) Admin/Shire
- Water allocation licences and reporting. See Action 4 Admin
8 Community involvement and awareness

- Document consultation/education roles & arrangements End 1999 C’wealth/
(Admin/Shire, Parks, CI Environment Officer, CIP, CIR); Admin/Shire
- Water use efficiency, audits and conservation advice; Asap Shire

- Advice on water use levels/patterns to consumers; Asap Shire
- Integrate education and advisory role in demand Ongoing Shire
management strategy
9 Coordinated implementation national water reform Asap C’wealth (for

agenda in all External Territories consideration)
10 WMP updates 5 yearly C’wealth/
Admin/Shire
12. REFERENCES
ACTEW (1995a). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). Proposal for Management, Protection,
Investigation and Monitoring of Water Resources. ACT Electricity and Water in association
with Douglas Partners, June 1995.
ACTEW (1995b). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). Proposal for Securing and Monitoring of Water
Sources. ACT Electricity and Water, June 1995.
ACTEW (1995c). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). Proposal for Trial Stormwater Recharge
Boreholes. ACT Electricity and Water in association with Douglas Partners. June 1995.
ACTEW (1996a). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) Water Source Improvements Planning and
Design Report. by Tony Falkland, Denis Baker and John Skinner, ACTEW Corporation,
June 1996.
ACTEW (1996b). Christmas Island Water Supply. Chlorination Commissioning and Visit Report,
Water Source Improvement Project. by Denis Baker, ACTEW Corporation, November
1996.
ACTEW (1996c). Christmas Island Water Supply. Chlorination Manual, Jedda Pump Station,.
prepared by Denis Baker, ACTEW Corporation, November 1996
ACTEW (1997a). Water Source Improvements and Water Management Plan, Progress Report, by
Tony Falkland, Rod Usback, John Skinner and Denis Baker, ACTEW Corporation, April
1997.
ACTEW (1997b). Water Management Plan, Second Progress Report, by Tony Falkland and Rod
Usback, ACTEW Corporation, June 1997.
ACTEW (1999). Groundwater Investigations and Monitoring Report, Christmas Island (Indian
Ocean). by Tony Falkland, ACTEW Corporation, November 1999.
Aller L., Benner T., Lehr J.H., Petty R.J. and Hackett G. (1987). A standardized system for evaluating
groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. US Environment Protection
Agency, EPA/600/2-87/035, Oklahoma, USA.
Appleyard, S.J. (1993). Explanatory Notes for the Groundwater Vulnerability to Contamination of the
Perth Basin. Geological Survey of Western Australia, record 1993/6.
APSC & SKM (1999). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Christmas Island Satellite
Launch Facility, Asia Pacific Space Centre and Sinclair Knight Merz, August 1999.
ARMCANZ (1996). Generic National Milestones for Actions to Implement the COAG Strategic
Framework for Water Reform, 1994, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of
Australia and New Zealand, 27 September 1996.
Barrett P. J. (1985). Christmas Island Water Resources, Summary Report, Internal report for
Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island, February 1985.
Baynes Geologic (1999). Comments re stability of Jedda cave and its entrance. fax of 22 July 1999
to GHD Pty Ltd.
COAG (1994). Communique, Water Resource Policy (strategic framework for water reform),
Council of Australian Governments, Hobart, 25 February 1994.
Coffey (1998). Geotechnical Hazard Assessment of Caves on Christmas Island (Indian Ocean).
Coffey Partners International Pty. Ltd., for Parks Australia North, November 1998.
Douglas Partners (1996). Christmas Island Water Supply. Monitoring and Stormwater Disposal
Bore Installation. prepared by Bron Smolski, December 1996.
Falkland A. (1999). Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Christmas Island
Satellite Launch Facility, by Asia Pacific Space Centre and Sinclair Knight Merz, October
1999.
Falkland A.C. (1986). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) Water Resources Study in relation to
proposed development at Waterfall. Report HWR 86/19. Hydrology and Water Resources
Section, Department of Territories.
Falkland A.C. (1992). Review of Groundwater Resources on Home and West Islands. Volume 1,
Main Report. prepared for Australian Construction Services, Department of Administrative
Services by Hydrology and Water Resources Branch, ACT Electricity and Water, Report
No. HWR92/01.
Falkland A.C. (1994). Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). Dye tracing study to assess impact of
landfill site on present water sources. Hydrology and Water Resources Branch, ACT
Electricity and Water.
Gugich J. (1999). Christmas Island Water Supply Leak Detection On-Site Investigation. Prepared for
GHD Pty Ltd (draft).
IETC (1998). Source book of alternative technologies for freshwater augmentation in Small Island
Developing States. International Environmental Technology Centre in collaboration with South
Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission and the Water Branch of UNEP, Technical
Publication Series No. 8.
NHMRC/ARMCANZ (1996). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Health and Medical
Research Council, and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and
New Zealand.
Pink B.J. and Falkland A.C. (1999). Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Water Monitoring Annual Report, 1998,
prepared for Cocos Island Administration, Cocos (Keeling) Islands by Hydrology Section,
Ecowise Environmental, Report No EHYD 99/03.
UNESCO (1991). Hydrology and water resources of small islands, a practical guide. Studies and
reports on hydrology No 49. prepared by A. Falkland (ed.) and E. Custodio with contributions
from A. Diaz Arenas & L. Simler and case studies submitted by others. Paris, France,
435pp.
WC/SMEC (1998). Christmas Island Utilities-Divestment and Future Management Options, Western
Australia Water Corporation and Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, September
1998.
Webb T. and Shepherd I. (1997). Pilot Satellite Imagery Processing Study, Christmas Island (Indian
Ocean) Water Management Plan. Report prepared by Unisearch Limited for ACTEW
Corporation.
WHO (1971). International Standards for Drinking Water, 3rd Edition, World Health Organisation,
Geneva.
WHO (1993). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Volume 1, Recommendations. World Health
Organisation, Geneva.
Works Australia (1997). Report on Waterfall and Freshwater water sources in Christmas Island
Resort lease area and Jones Spring, north of the lease area. Prepared for Department of
Environment, Sport and Territories, June 1997.
13. ANNEXES
D. Project Brief 84
E. Discussion Paper - “Christmas Island Water Management - Issues for Community
Discussion” 86
F. Leaflet - “Christmas Island Water Management - Summary of Issues for Community
Discussion” in 3 languages (English, Chinese and Malay) 91
Annex A
Project Brief
[The text below is a re-typed copy of Annex A of the Proposal for Management, Protection,
Investigation and Monitoring of Water Resources, Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). ACT Electricity
and Water in association with Douglas Partners, June 1995.]
Draft Brief for the Management, Protection, Investigation and

Monitoring of Water Sources Consultancy on Christmas Island
Water Management and Protection Plan

A Water Management and Protection Plan is to be prepared for Christmas Island, generally along the
lines of the recommendations made in section 6.3 of the Dye Tracing Study report made by Mr Tony
Falkland of the Hydrology and Water Resources Branch, ACT Electricity and Water, in January
1994.
This plan is to address:
• legislation
• administrative requirements (CISC, ANCA, CI Admin)
• technical investigations and studies
• groundwater quality standards
• groundwater development options
• mechanisms of groundwater allocation and charging
• groundwater protection requirements
• public education and awareness
• opportunities for community involvement
Groundwater Investigation and Monitoring Requirements

A groundwater investigation is to be carried out and a monitoring management system is to be
prepared for Christmas Island water supplies, generally along the lines of the recommendations
made in section 6.4 of the Dye Tracing Study report made by Mr Tony Falkland of the Hydrology and
Water Resources Branch, ACT Electricity and Water, in January 1994.
The research program needs to be set up with input from discussions with the consultants and
representatives from ANCA, Christmas Island Administration, the Shire Council and ACS shall
comprise of but not necessarily be limited to:
1. Undertake drilling and testing to determine the presence or not of:
• perched groundwater in the high level volcanic rock, and
• the basal groundwater body underlying the Island.
2. Undertake drilling and testing in the vicinity of existing landfill and proposed landfill sites
3. In conjunction with and following drilling, carry out:
• recharge analysis
• locate freshwater flows using satellite imagery
• flow model antecedent flow and rainfall
• aquifer classification and map vulnerability
Note: The recommendations contained in the dye tracing study refer to a two stage study over a
period of 2-3 years. Consideration should be given to the cost of drilling investigations and the
possibility of doing both stages of drilling in the one mobilisation to Christmas Island.
4. Prepare a monitoring program for:
• weir flows
• pumping and pipeline flows
• storage flows and usage
• monitoring water chemistry
• chlorine and microbiological tests
• on going water level and salinity tests in bore holes
• daily evaporation tests
• flow and salinity recording in Daniel Roux Cave
5. Prepare a processing, monitoring, analysis and reporting program and procedure including a
suitable database to allow ongoing control and management of the Christmas Island water
resources. This program should include maximum use of on-Island staff, eg CISC, and
appropriate training of personnel.
Deliverables
Water Management and Protection Plan:

• Draft plan for joint discussions – ten copies
• Final plan – ten copies
Groundwater investigation reports:

• Draft report – six copies
• Final report – ten copies
Monitoring program:
• Six copies
Training/monitoring manual:
• Six copies
Operating and maintenance manual for monitoring systems:

• Six copies
A Hordyk
9 June, 1995
Annex B
Discussion Paper
CHRISTMAS ISLAND WATER MANAGEMENT

“ISSUES FOR COMMUNITY DISCUSSION”
Introduction
Most of the water supply on Christmas Island comes from groundwater - from water under the ground.
Groundwater, like other freshwater sources, is always a limited resource. Careful management of
groundwater on Christmas Island is very important, especially since it is the main source of freshwater
for human consumption.
How much underground water is there?

The total volume of groundwater available on Christmas Island is not known in any exact way.
However, it is known that currently identified groundwater sources would generally satisfy the needs of
a population about twice the size of the present population, although a severe drought may affect
availability. Of course, if water supplies are used wisely, and wastewater is reused where possible,
then supplies for a larger population would be available.
How can this water be used wisely?

A key water supply issue for people on Christmas Island is the sustainable use of groundwater. How
should water be used and managed so that groundwater remains as plentiful and unpolluted for future
generations as it is now?
In 1992, all governments in Australia agreed to a list of principles for the sustainable development of
resources, referred to as ecologically sustainable development (ESD). They agreed to a national
strategy for ESD which sets down these principles, including how decisions are made, involvement of
communities and looking after the needs of future generations.
In basic terms, what do these principles mean for the Christmas Island community and how do they
apply to the wise use of water on the Island? If these ESD principles are followed on Christmas Island,
this would ensure that:
S the needs of future generations of Christmas Islanders are not affected by the actions, lifestyles and
decisions of existing residents, industry or government administration;
S the variety of plants and animals on the island is protected in so far as they depend on fresh water;
S the environment is accounted for properly by valuing and pricing water use by people to reflect the
costs of any damage to the environment;
S users pay and polluters pay for resource consumption and environmental loss;
S precaution is used where there is uncertainty, and lack of scientific evidence is not used as an
excuse to avoid environmental protection; and
S the community is involved in decisions that affect them and their children.
Adherence to ESD principles would ensure that water is used sustainably and wastewater is managed
as a resource to reduce demand on groundwater and to ensure that land and groundwater are not
polluted.
Water Management in Australia

It is useful to look at general directions in the Australian water industry as a guide to the care of
groundwater on Christmas island.
Since the national agreement on ESD in 1992, Australian Governments have also agreed on a number
of more specific principles to achieve a sustainable water industry, including:
Water pricing
S establish water pricing to ensure there is payment for the water used with full recovery of the
costs of water supply, thus leading to minimal inefficient use or waste of water;
S a 1998 deadline has been set to achieve water charging which includes the cost for connection
to town water and a water usage cost;
The environment
S ensure sufficient water is left in the environment to meet the needs of plants and animals, having
regard to the ecological health of stream and groundwater systems;
Different responsibilities
S the roles of water resource management, standards setting and regulations, and service
provision should be separated, as far as possible;
Consultation and public education
S public consultation on water issues and appropriate public education programs should be
developed and followed; and
Alternative water sources and monitoring
S opportunities to use stormwater and wastewater as a resource should be examined.
Knowledge of these directions will help Christmas Islanders in making choices about water supply and
moving towards the best use of water resources on the Island.
The community is being given an opportunity to have their say on water use practices and ongoing care
of water resources, in light of local needs as well as these national directions.
How will proper care of Christmas Island’s water supply be achieved?

In 1992 it was decided that the laws of Western Australia would be reflected in the laws of the Indian
Ocean Territories. There is much work going on at present to determine just how some of these laws
should be applied and how they will work for the Christmas Island community. In relation to water, it is
essential that the local community have its say about the directions it wants followed.
In seeking to achieve long term goals for growth on Christmas Island and management of resources
such as water, the community and government officials are partners in discussing and identifying these
goals and how they will be pursued.
For water use and management, such goals can be achieved through a variety of means including laws,
education programs and proper water pricing approaches which ensure water is not under-valued and
wasted. But it is important to first work out how water is to be managed and how it will be used wisely
by the community on Christmas Island.
How is water managed and used on Christmas Island at present?
The Shire of Christmas Island is the managing agent, on behalf of the Commonwealth, for the water
supply from groundwater resources on Christmas Island. Where rainwater tanks are used, these are
the responsibility of the private owner.
There has been a number of investigations into the extent of groundwater resources on the Island. At
the present time, there is further investigation and drilling occurring under a Commonwealth
Government funded project.
As indicated earlier, the amount of water available is limited and needs to be managed wisely. In the
past, there has been only limited metering or measuring of water use, so it is difficult to know how much
water is being used, for what purposes, and how much water is being lost from the water supply system.
It is not clear exactly how much water is being used by Christmas Islanders on a per capita basis and
how much might be saved but, overall, indications suggest that water consumption per person could be
greater than most other parts of Australia. At present, water meters are being installed on water
consumer connections in order to monitor the water usage.
Based on industry-wide experience in Australia, the introduction of consumer metering is necessary to
provide information on water consumption and improve management of water use.
There are a number of questions which the Christmas Island community may wish to comment on in
discussing directions and possible improvements in the way water is used and managed on the Island.
For example:
S Is water used wisely or is water wasted? Is water under-valued by the community generally? If so,
why?
S Should more be known by the community about the limits to supply from groundwater? If so, how
could this be done?
S What are the environmental effects of groundwater use? Are they significant for Christmas Island?
S What other sources of water should be considered (e.g. more extensive use of rainwater tanks,
recycled wastewater)?
S Do we want to use water more efficiently, reduce pressures on current sources and delay the need
for, and costs of, new sources?
S Will Christmas Islanders be willing to change water use practices?
S Do people need assistance in learning how to save water and to use it wisely?
S Where is most water used - in the home, at school, at work, on gardens?
S How much water is being lost through leakage from the water supply pipelines?
S How should water be priced and charged for?
S How quickly should an appropriate pricing system be introduced?
S Can we reduce our water consumption without affecting our quality of life?
There is a need to identify who is responsible for the different aspects of groundwater protection and
water management on Christmas Island. For example, should the Commonwealth be the water resource
manager and the Shire of Christmas Island the water provider?
How to avoid pollution of groundwater?

importance to human beings, as well as the substantial costs for removing any contamination. On
Christmas Island, where the community is almost totally dependent on groundwater for supply, this
need for valuing and protecting it is essential for the benefit of existing and future residents.
Growth in population, urban development and industrial activity will place increasing demands on
groundwater resources. Depending on the extent to which land use planning and environmental
controls are used to protect groundwater, the potential for pollution of land or surface water will
increase the threat to groundwater quality.
Contamination of groundwater may not become apparent for many years after pollution occurs.
Protection and careful management are therefore essential to avoid high costs for clean-up. In some
cases, it might not be possible to restore polluted groundwater sources.
Pollution of groundwater by sewage may also threaten public health. Serious outbreaks of
gastroenteritis are known of, for example, from water pollution in island communities living in close
proximity to their groundwater supplies.
In addition, over-pumping of groundwater can render it unusable where this leads to entry of polluted
or undrinkable water (e.g. seawater).
Possible sources of pollution on Christmas Island are:
S rubbish disposal areas producing polluted water;
S leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines;
S fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide use;
S pollution from septic tanks and sewerage infrastructure;
S mining industry activities and wastes;
S urban stormwater;
S entry of sea water.
The Christmas Island administration has an opportunity to ensure present land use activities and
controls are adequate to protect groundwater. Key areas of interest include waste disposal practices,
wastewater management and the location and effects of urban development and mining activities on
groundwater.
How should Christmas Island water resources and the water supply be protected?
In light of the issues and potential problems outlined above, it is clear that some form of Water
Management Plan is required if the interests of present and future generations of Christmas Islanders
and visitors are to be assured.
It is important to define the elements of such a Plan before determining how Western Australian
legislation might apply and whether it meets the needs of the Government, the Shire of Christmas Island
and local residents. Ordinances may be necessary to exclude the operation of parts of WA law or
create new legal provisions relating to care of water and water supply provision.
Essential elements of a Water Management Plan could be expected to include:
S opportunity for community involvement in the issues and in the wise use of water;
S programs for continued community awareness and education;
S continued investigation and monitoring of the quantity and quality of groundwater resources;
S water quality standards for Christmas island;
S the best methods of withdrawing water and monitoring any effects of use by Christmas Islanders;
S continued assessment of the best levels of use of groundwater and the levels of water supply
demand;
S proper calculation of water supply costs and introduction of payment for use of water; and
S use and research of alternative sources, such as rainwater tanks and wastewater reuse.
Key aspects for discussion include the goals for long term protection and use of water. Environmental,
resource management and land use planning controls, as well as pricing and community awareness will
be important mechanisms for achieving these goals and groundwater protection directions decided for
Christmas Island.
There is a need to identify:
S who has the water resource manager’s role and what mechanisms should managers use to ‘licence’
groundwater allocation and extraction?
S who has actual responsibility for preventing pollution of surface and groundwater?
S who has actual responsibility for the water supply function and how are decisions made about:
S the price of water
S use of water meters to measure how much water people use
S education and awareness
S conservation of water resources
S management of the water supply system including control of water losses
S use of alternative sources of water, such as rainwater tanks?
In terms of sustainable use of groundwater:
S who assesses and documents groundwater resources?
S who determines sustainable yields, taking into account environmental needs?
S who investigates long term sustainability of use and the groundwater recharge process over a
sufficiently long period which accommodates the effects of drought?
S what amounts of freshwater are needed by the environment?
S what levels of groundwater use will lead to irreversible effects?
S who measures water quality?
The community has an opportunity now to think about and discuss these matters and the range of issues
raised in this paper. Only then, can government administration respond in a meaningful way.
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ANNEX C

by
Tony Falkland
and
Rod Usback
Annex C
Leaflets
“Christmas Island Water Management

- Summary of Issues for Community Discussion”
in three languages
(a) English
(b) Chinese
(c) Malay
blank page
Leaflet – English version – page 1




Leaflet – Chinese version – page 1




Leaflet – Malay version – page 1




Water Management: Christmas Island, Indian Ocean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Water Management: Christmas Island, Indian Ocean

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Water Management: Christmas Island, Indian Ocean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHRISTMAS ISLAND, INDIAN OCEAN

Prepared for GHD Pty Ltd

CHRISTMAS ISLAND, INDIAN OCEAN

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prepared for GHD Pty Ltd

4. GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING 23

5. GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS 34

5.2 Classes of Water 34

6. GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 37

7. WATER ALLOCATION AND CHARGING POLICY 48

8. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 60

9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND AWARENESS 64

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72

11. ACTION PLAN 83

Photographs on Front Cover:

Summary and Conclusions

In conducting its groundwater management, allocation and environment protection functions, it is

Community involvement and awareness

6. In relation to groundwater resource monitoring and protection:

• A capability to undertake an ongoing programme of ‘leakage control’ (comprising both

• develop suitable administrative arrangements to ensure the water conservation role is

1.3 Structure of the Plan

2.1 Requirements of the Brief

2.3 Present Laws Relevant to Water on Christmas Island

2.4 Directions and Requirements

3.1 Requirements of the Brief

3.2 Broader Directions and Context

3.3 Current Administrative Arrangements

3.4 Water Supply Authority Options for Christmas Island

3.5 Formal Transfer of Water Supply Function – Need for MOU

4. GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

4.1 Requirements of the Brief

4.3 Drilling and Testing Program

4.3.1 Water resources monitoring boreholes

Table 1 Summary of conditions at water resources monitoring boreholes

Borehole Distance from

Smithson Bight area (basal groundwater)

4.3.2 Pollution monitoring boreholes

4.4 Groundwater Recharge Assessment

4.5 Satellite Imagery Study for Coastal Outflows

4.6 Rainfall-flow model for springs & Jedda Cave

4.7 Aquifer Classification and Vulnerability

4.7.2 Vulnerability map

4.8 Water Monitoring Program

4.8.2 Ongoing monitoring program

Figure 2 Christmas Island aquifer classification map

Figure 3 Christmas Island aquifer vulnerability map

4.8.3 Costs for ongoing monitoring

5. GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS

5.1 Requirements of the Brief

5.2 Classes of Water

5.3 Water for Drinking Purposes

5.3.3 Other physical and chemical quality parameters

5.3.4 Chemical pollutants

5.4 Water for other purposes

6. GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

6.1 Requirements of the Brief