SPECIAL SUBMISSIONS
TECHNICAL REPORTS
Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia: A Review of Recent Advances and Remaining Challenges
Tim D. Fletcher,* Ana Deletic, V. Grace Mitchell, and Belinda E. Hatt Monash University
The degradation of aquatic ecosystems due to hydrologic
and water quality impacts of urbanization, combined with
increasing water scarcity, has generated increasing interest in
the harvesting of urban storm water. This paper reviews the
rationale for integrated storm water treatment and harvesting
and synthesizes recent advances and trends and knowledge
gaps that limit its application. Storm water harvesting is
shown to be a viable alternative water supply and to provide
a potential solution to the increases in runoff frequency and
peak flows that occur as a result of catchment urbanization.
In general, treatment technologies for storm water harvesting
have been adapted from existing “water-sensitive urban design”
approaches, with limited use of traditional water supply and
wastewater technologies. Risk management is often lacking, in
part due to a lack of relevant guidance. Reported performance
shows variable levels of potable water savings, with cases of up
to 100% substitution recorded. Costs of storm water harvesting
systems are shown to be inversely related to their scale. The
limited cost data show the importance of context, with the
harvested water costing more or less than alternative supplies,
depending on the cost of the alternative. Limited data exist on
environmental benefits, such as reductions in pollutant loads
and flow peaks. Implementation of storm water harvesting
systems is impeded by inadequate data on risk, lifecycle costs,
externalities, and water–energy tradeoffs. Furthermore, retrofit
of storm water harvesting into existing urban areas is proving to
be a challenge, creating an urgent need for specific technologies
for use in retrofit situations.
Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. All rights
reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including pho-
tocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Published in J. Environ. Qual. 37:S-116–S-127 (2008).
doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0411
Received 3 Aug. 2007.
*Corresponding author (tim.fletcher@eng.monash.edu).
© ASA, CSSA, SSSA
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
S-116
I n recent years, the environmental consequences of uncontrolled
and untreated discharge of urban storm water runoff have
been well documented. Changes to hydrology (Boyd et al., 1993;
Carlson and Arthur, 2000; Leopold, 1968; Wong et al., 2000) and
to pollutant concentrations and loads (Hatt et al., 2004b) have
been widely observed. Aquatic ecosystems in catchments with even
small proportions of urbanization have been shown to be degraded
in terms of stream functioning (Groffman et al., 2002; Harbott
and Grace, 2005; Meyer et al., 2005) and species composition
(Morgan and Cushman, 2005; Roy et al., 2005; Serena and
Pettigrove, 2005). Recognition of these consequences has led to
the development of a range of storm water treatment technologies,
such as sediment basins, ponds (Farm, 2002; Lloyd et al., 2002b;
Marsalek and Marsalek, 1997), storm water wetlands (Bourguès
and Hart, 2007; Carleton et al., 2000; Farm, 2002; House et al.,
1994), and the more recent developments in biofiltration, using
vegetated soil filters (Davis et al., 2001; Denman et al., 2007; Hatt
et al., 2006b, 2008; Henderson et al., 2007).
At the same time, pressure on water resources in urban areas is
increasing, with growing demand and limited water sources. This,
combined with an increasing awareness of environmental issues
(Harremoes, 1997), has resulted in an increased attention to the
potential for harvesting urban runoff as an alternative water re-
source, primarily for nonpotable purposes (Hatt et al., 2006a).
This paper reviews recent advances in the harvesting of urban
storm water runoff. First, we briefly explore the rationale for storm
water harvesting by reviewing recent insights into the mechanisms of
environmental degradation by urban storm water and outlining the
context of increasingly limited urban water resources. We explore the
recent advances and trends in storm water harvesting and treatment
systems, documenting the evolution from “receiving-water-focused”
treatment to the new technologies aimed specifically at providing
storm water for harvesting. We also attempt to assess the performance
of storm water runoff harvesting systems in terms of water savings and
environmental, economic, and social consequences. Last, we identify
areas that we believe remain as impediments to the adoption of effec-
tive use of storm water runoff as an alternative water supply.
Rationale for Harvesting of Storm Water Runoff
Urbanization represents the fastest growing land use in the
world (United Nations, 2008); for the first time, more than 50%
of the world’s populations currently live in urban areas. As a con-
Dep. of Civil Engineering (Institute for Sustainable Water Resources), Bldg. 60, Monash
Univ., Victoria, Australia, 3800.
Abbreviations: BNR, biological nutrient removal; SMURRF, Santa Monica Urban Runoff
Reclamation Facility; UV, ultraviolet; WSUD, water sensitive urban design.
sequence, demand for water in many urban areas is approach-
ing, and in some cases exceeding, the available supply (Hatt et
al., 2006a). For example, in 2006, six of the seven Australian
state capital cities faced water restrictions, affecting an esti-
mated 70% of the Australian population of 21 million people
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). Similar shortages face
parts of Africa, China, Singapore, the USA, Israel, and Europe
(Niemczynowicz, 1996; Vlachos and Braga, 2001).
Although there are several potential alternative water sup-
plies that may help to address this shortage, such as recycling
of wastewater or desalination of sea water, the harvesting and
treatment of urban runoff has the advantage of higher public
acceptance than wastewater recycling (Brown and Davies,
2007; Coombes and Mitchell, 2006). Mitchell et al. (2003)
showed that the annual storm water discharged (from separate
storm water sewer systems) from three major Australian cit-
ies—Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney—was similar to their
total water demand (50% of which is for nonpotable uses).
The other key driver for harvesting of storm water is an increas-
ing recognition of the impacts of unmitigated urban runoff. Per-
haps more importantly, there has been substantial recent research
into the mechanisms that contribute to this degradation. Broadly
speaking, urbanization causes significant changes to a catchment’s
hydrology (e.g., Leopold, 1968; Rose and Peters, 2001) and water
quality (Hatt et al., 2004b; Soranno et al., 1996).
Changes to hydrology from urbanization are well docu-
mented and are related to two factors: (i) the proportion of the
catchment, which is made up of impervious surfaces, and (ii) the
hydraulic efficiency of flow paths from these impervious areas
to receiving waters (Booth and Jackson, 1997; Leopold, 1968;
Walsh et al., 2005b; Wong et al., 2000). For example, Leopold
(1968) showed that urbanization leads to decreases in the lag
time between rainfall and runoff and increased peak flow, with
the greatest proportional increase occurring for the smaller, more
frequent events (because for larger events, pervious areas become
saturated and begin to produce runoff anyway). Leopold suggest-
ed that 20% imperviousness would result in a doubling of the
frequency of overbank flows, with 50% resulting in four times
the predeveloped frequency. Similar observations have been made
by several studies (Codner et al., 1988; Driver and Troutman,
1989; Olivera and DeFee, 2007; Wong et al., 2000). Wong et al.
(2000) showed that the 20% annual exceedence probability flow
(i.e., the flow with an average recurrence interval of 5 yr) under
rural conditions would occur on average 2 to 3 times per year,
with only 20% catchment imperviousness.
The proportion of a catchment that is impervious is not
the only predictor of the degree of hydrologic disturbance
that derives from urbanization. Rather, a long series of studies
have examined the extent to which hydraulic efficiency of the
drainage network controls catchment response to urbaniza-
tion. Leopold (1968) showed that the post:predevelopment
peak flow ratio depends on the proportion of impervious ar-
eas that are directly connected (via a pipe or constructed lined
channel, for example) to the receiving water.
Wong et al. (2000) continued this line of enquiry, com-
paring the consequences of maintaining natural drainage
Fletcher et al.: Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia
channels with that of lining some or all drainage channels
within the catchment. They concluded that 80 to 90% of
the increase in peak flows is explained by the nature of the
drainage connection, rather than simply the proportion of
the catchment that is impervious. More recently, Hatt et al.’s
(2004b) investigation of water quality in relation to catch-
ment characteristics also showed that the nature of connection
of impervious areas to receiving waters was a strong indepen-
dent predictor of pollutant concentrations and loads.
One aspect of the hydrologic changes brought about by urban-
ization that has been less studied is the change in evapotranspira-
tion. Generally, it is expected that the amount of evapotranspira-
tion will be less after urbanization due to the loss of vegetation
(Oke, 1987). However, this effect may be altered by the impact of
garden watering and open-space irrigation (Grimmond and Oke,
1991), particularly in areas with lower density and large gardens.
Although it has long been known that urbanization and the
documented changes in hydrology and water quality lead to deg-
radation of aquatic ecosystems (Aalderink et al., 1990; Arthing-
ton et al., 1983; Pratt et al., 1981), the recent insights into the
importance of drainage connection has significantly informed
recent ecological studies of the “urban stream syndrome” (Walsh
et al., 2005b). For example, Taylor et al. (2004) showed that ben-
thic algal biomass was directly related to the degree of connec-
tion of impervious areas to receiving waters. Harbott and Grace
(2005) showed similar relationships for extracellular enzyme re-
sponse, as did Walsh (2004) for macroinvertebrates. Walsh et al.
(2005a, 2004) observed that the frequency of runoff into receiv-
ing waters is a critical indicator of the likely degradation to receiv-
ing waters. Consequently, they suggest that it is necessary to in-
tercept and retain any rainfall up to the amount that would have
caused surface runoff under predeveloped conditions. Ladson et
al. (2007) further explore this, demonstrating that installation of
rain water tanks on each property and the installation of storm
water infiltration and biofiltration systems would be sufficient to
achieve the required predeveloped runoff frequency.
It is also well established that the increased peak flows that
occur as a result of urbanization can lead to geomorphologic
changes, such as bed and bank erosion and channel enlarge-
ment (Booth, 1990; Booth and Jackson, 1997; Konrad et al.,
2005) and the destruction of benthic habitat due to sediment
smothering (Lenat and Crawford, 1994; Olthof, unpublished
data, 1994; Wang et al., 1997).
The important implication of these recent research find-
ings is that retention and “loss” of storm water is necessary to
restore catchment hydrology toward predevelopment levels.
Storm water reuse provides one potential tool to assist in this
aim. By detaining and using urban runoff, there may be po-
tential reductions in peak flow, annual runoff volume, and the
frequency of runoff (Walsh et al., 2005a).
Despite this apparently strong rationale for the harvesting of
urban runoff as a means for simultaneously tackling water supply
shortages and degradation of aquatic ecosystems, urban storm
water remains a relatively neglected water resource (Thomas et al.,
1997). One reason for this may be the relative lack of technology
and facilities already in place, relative to other components of
S-117
Fig. 1. Main components of urban storm water harvesting systems.

the urban water management system. For example, recycling of
wastewater is facilitated by the fact that treatment infrastructure
for wastewater treatment is well established, meaning that adding
infrastructure for additional treatment, along with storage and
distribution, is relatively straightforward (Thomas et al., 1997).
Recent Advances and Trends
Evolution of Technologies: From Storm water Treatment
to Storm Water Harvesting
Urban storm water harvesting systems are made up of four
main components: collection, treatment, storage, and distribu-
tion, which may also play a role in flood protection (Fig. 1). Ur-
ban storm water is generated in large quantities within short peri-
ods, and the nature of this pollutant source is diffuse (Burton and
Pitt, 2001). Therefore, storm water treatment commonly uses
natural purification processes that also allow for temporary stor-
age and attenuation of flows, such as sedimentation in large open
water bodies, filtration through soils (or any other filtration me-
dia), or biological uptake by plants and microorganisms. These
systems are usually energy efficient and highly diverse (Table 1).
These systems were originally known as Best Management Prac-
tices for storm water management (WEF and ASCE, 1998). They
are now becoming known as Low Impact Development systems in
the USA (Department of Environmental Resources, 1999), Water
Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australia (Wong, 2006), and
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in the UK (CIRIA, 2000b).
There are numerous design guidelines for their construction, with
almost every developed country, state or, region issuing their own
manual (e.g., Auckland Regional Council, 2002; CIRIA, 2001;

Table 1. Storm water treatment measures and their pollutant removal effectiveness for pollution control and storm water harvesting applications
(Source: CIRIA, 2000a, 2000b; WEF and ASCE, 1998; Wong, 2006).
Effectiveness of treatment measure
Storm water Pollution control Storm water harvesting
treatment measure Pollutant removal mechanisms Sediment Nutrients Heavy metals Sediment Nutrients Heavy metals Pathogens
Swales and filter strips sedimentation 99 9 99 9 9 9 ?
coarse filtration
infiltration
Ponds and wetlands sedimentation 999 99 999 99 9 99 99
filtration
biological processes
infiltration
evapotranspiration
Biofiltration systems sedimentation 999 99 999 999 9 999 ?
filtration
biological processes
infiltration
evapotranspiration
Infiltration systems sedimentation 999 99 999 99 9 99 99
filtration
biological processes
infiltration
evapotranspiration

S-118 Journal of Environmental Quality • Volume 37 • September–October [Supplement] 2008

Wong, 2006). Regulations in many countries also require the treat-
ment of urban storm water to mitigate pollution effects.
These systems have only recently been considered for use
in storm water harvesting, motivated primarily by water re-
source shortages. Traditional storm water treatment systems
have been retrofitted, or new systems have been built for har-
vesting. Australia is a leading example due primarily to its se-
vere long-term drought. In the last few years, the practice has
increasingly been supported by the authorities as a valuable
alternative water resource (Brown and Clarke, 2007; Com-
monwealth of Australia, 2002; Radcliffe, 2004).
A review of storm water harvesting systems in Australia was
recently conducted (Hatt et al., 2006a) with respect to sizing,
performance, operation, and integration into the total water
cycle. Key observations of that review are reported below.
1. System Components. Storm water harvesting is largely
restricted to smaller scale sites, and the water has been
used for nonpotable purposes, overwhelmingly for
urban irrigation. Collection and storage were based
on conventional methods, such as gutters, pits, pipes,
and channels for collection and large centralized stores.
Treatment was based mainly on WSUD techniques;
however, advanced techniques (outlined in the
following section) and disinfection were occasionally
used if there were perceptions of health risk.
2. Design. The same design methods were used for reuse
schemes as for storm water pollution control alone. This
may cause some problems because such systems were never
intended to be used to deliver reliably high water quality
(in particular the variability of treatment may be an issue).
Design of surface stores was not well defined; sometimes
the storage was retrofitted into existing ponds and urban
lakes rather than sized to meet required demand.
3. Construction, Maintenance, and Operation. Construction
tolerance in these systems was generally finer than
in conventional systems. Despite the importance of
maintenance, a number of studied sites seem to have
been neglected since completion of construction due
to a lack of defined maintenance regimes. Therefore, it
was likely that the integrity of a number of the systems
studied has been at risk, potentially affecting water
quality, public health, and amenity.
4. Implementation Issues. Although there was significant public
acceptance of storm water harvesting, one of the most
frequently encountered issues was lengthy negotiation,
assessment, and approval processes. This was largely due to
a lack of experience and policies on the part of the water
industry and relevant authorities. However, it was found
that a partnership approach, often between the various
levels of government and a private developer as well as
design teams and researchers, was highly successful because
it enabled all parties’ skills, roles, and experience to be
combined. Ongoing monitoring of system performance
was shown to be critical.
Fletcher et al.: Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia
Selected Promising Storm Water Harvesting Technologies
Porous Pavement Technologies
Due to the growing needs for storm water harvesting, some
novel concepts are emerging that may enhance the potential for
application of storm water harvesting systems across a greater range
of situations. One such technology is based on the proven concept
of porous pavement, which has been used for decades in storm
water flow and pollution management. Traditional design of a
porous pavement system consists of a porous surface overlaying a
filter layer (a bedding material) that is placed on top of a sub-base
(usually divided by geotextile). The porous surface can be modular
(unbound individual and nonporous blocks, laid down with gaps
in between) or monolithic (asphalt or concrete without fine aggre-
gate; i.e., the entire surface is porous). The sub-base may contain a
collection pipe for drainage. The systems are usually installed in car
parks and sections of streets with low traffic volume.
In some countries (e.g., the UK, Sweden, Japan, and the
USA), porous pavements have been widely used for control
of storm water (Newton et al., 2003). They have infiltration
capacities usually upward of 4500 mm h−1 when new. Reduc-
tions in annual runoff coefficients from around 0.95 for normal
pavement to around 0.4 for porous pavement are typical, with
many authors reporting even greater reductions (Pratt et al.,
1995). Consistent water quality performance has been observed
from porous pavers, with reductions in total suspended solids,
total P, and total N of around 80, 65, and 60%, respectively,
and hydrocarbon and metal reductions commonly around 85
and 75%, respectively (Berbee et al., 1999; Pratt et al., 1995;
Pagotto et al., 2000). Early perceptions of clogging and struc-
tural problems have hindered the adoption of porous pave-
ment. It has been shown that most systems are not very prone
to clogging, with localized problems being relatively easy to fix.
Studies show after 15 to 20 yr of operation, they provide high
infiltration rates (100–1000 mm h−1) (Pratt et al., 1995; Davies
et al., 2002; Pratt et al., 1981). These systems are rather inex-
pensive and suitable for densely populated areas where other
storm water treatment systems are usually not applicable.
There are two cases in Australia were porous pavement was
used for collection, treatment, and storage. In storm water reuse
schemes in Manly, Sydney (McRae, 2002), modular systems were
used to collect water from a 3-ha, densely populated residential
catchment. Treatment was provided by filtration through engi-
neered material that comprised of expanded polymer made from
recycled plastics with sufficient strength to carry normal pave-
ment loadings and a high cation exchange capacity and biofilm
density to remove bacteria. Treated water was stored in an under-
ground (400 m3) modular store. There was no proper monitoring
program, and only sporadic data have been collected. These data
showed relatively high removal of heavy metals and Escherichia
coli (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2006).
A similar system was built at Homebush Bay in Sydney
(Hatt et al., 2004a), where porous pavement and ecosoils
(soils amended to have specific properties that are conducive
to water quality improvement) were used for collection and
treatment, respectively. The harvested water was directly used
S-119
Fig. 2. Conceptual drawing of the Monash University storm water harvesting system.
for irrigation of nearby trees, and therefore the system did not
have storage. A small system built in the UK is used to collect,
treat, and store storm water runoff from a car park (375 m2)
that is then used for flushing toilets in a youth hostel (Pratt,
1999). The interesting feature here is that the sub-base of the
pavement was used to treat and store the harvested water.
It has been concluded that porous pavements can provide the
basis for further developments in treatment and storage of storm
water for reuse. Technologies for achieving an effective imple-
mentation of porous pavements for storm water reuse are still
to be refined, but they seem to have great potential, particularly
given their ability to provide treatment and storage within the
existing impervious surface, thus overcoming space constraints.
Biofiltration Technologies
Biofiltration is an emerging technology that has been used as
an effective treatment of storm water, primarily for protection
of aquatic ecosystems, and more recently for nonpotable use.
For example, reductions in heavy metal and total suspended
solids concentrations through biofiltration media of more than
90% are commonly observed (Davis et al., 2003; Hatt et al.,
2008). However, nutrient removal tends to be far more vari-
able, depending on the filter media (Hatt et al., 2006b, 2007;
Henderson et al., 2007), the presence of vegetation (Henderson
et al., 2007), plant type (Read et al., 2007), and the presence of
an anaerobic zone to promote coupled nitrification–denitrifi-
cation within the filter medium (Hsieh and Davis, 2005; Kim
et al., 2003). Most studies show good removal of total Kjeldahl
nitrogen and NH3 that is often offset by leaching of NO3
(Davis et al., 2001, 2003; Henderson et al., 2007; Hatt et al.,
2008). Phosphorus removal is typically high (e.g., Davis et al.,
2006) and may increase with depth (Hatt et al., 2008).
Results from laboratory studies are not always repeated
by monitoring of field systems, particularly due to variations
in soil properties (Hunt et al., 2006) and climate conditions.
For storm water harvesting systems, this variability may be
more problematic than it is for the protection of aquatic eco-
systems, where some periods of poor water quality may be
S-120 Journal of Environmental Quality • Volume 37 • September–October [Supplement] 2008
acceptable. Among the studies of biofiltration system perfor-
mance, there is a lack of studies into the removal efficiency for
pathogens. Given the public health implications of high levels
of bacteria, viruses, or protozoans in harvested storm water,
this is an important gap that needs to be addressed.
There are several storm water harvesting systems that use
biofiltration as their treatment mechanism currently being
trialed in Australia, including one at Monash University in
Melbourne, which has been extensively monitored. This sys-
tem captures runoff from a carpark; the runoff passes through
pretreatment settling tanks and then into a fully lined biofiltra-
tion system (Fig. 2). The treated water is stored in an adjacent
pond before being used to irrigate a nearby sports oval. Three
different filter media types were trialed in separate filter strips:
sandy loam; 80% sandy loam, 10% vermiculite, 10% perlite;
and 80% sandy loam, 10% composted pine bark, and 10%
hardwood mulch. The entire biofilter is densely vegetated with
native species that are tolerant of variable wetting and drying.
The hydraulic and treatment performance of the biofilter
was monitored via a fully automated monitoring system. Lev-
eled V-notch weirs and ultrasonic depth sensors were used to
continuously (1-min time step) measure flow rates, whereas au-
tosamplers collected flow-weighted water quality samples at the
inlet and three outlet points (i.e., from each filter strip; Fig. 2).
On average, 30 to 35% of inflow volume was lost via evapo-
transpiration. Although this is beneficial in terms of pollution con-
trol (reducing loads and ensuring that contaminants in the filter
are held there for longer periods, thus allowing treatment processes
to occur), this loss of water is an important consideration when
designing a storm water harvesting system. In terms of pollutant
removal, removal of sediment and heavy metals was consistently
high, outflow concentrations of nutrients were variable, and all
three biofilter strips tended to leach P and N (Table 2). In addition
to the regular water quality monitoring, two spiking tests were per-
formed to evaluate the pathogen removal efficiency of the biofilter.
The pathogen surrogates—baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae),
E. coli, and the coliphage MS2—were used in these tests to rep-
resent the behavior of the protozoan pathogen Cryptosporidium,
bacterial pathogens, and human Table 2. Mean event-mean pollutant concentrations at the inlet and outlets of the Monash University biofilter. †
enteric viruses, respectively. Sampling point TSS TP FRP TN NH4+ NOx DON Cu Pb Zn
The mean log10 reductions for ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– mg L−1–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
each of the microbial surrogates Inlet 39 0.072 0.006 1.1 0.073 0.37 0.31 0.016 0.0052 0.25
were as follows (ranges are Outlet 1 (SL)‡ 5 0.21 0.10 1.2 0.023 0.40 0.64 0.0055 0.0017 0.029
Outlet 2 (SLVP) 3 0.16 0.10 1.2 0.016 0.53 0.57 0.0051 0.0015 0.014
shown in parentheses): E. coli,
Outlet 3 (SLCM) 4 0.16 0.10 1.0 0.020 0.15 0.64 0.0037 0.0017 0.013
1.63 (1.06– 3.30); yeast, 2.29 † DON, dissolved organic nitrogen; FRP, filterable reactive phosphorus; NOx, nitrate + nitrite;
(0.84–3.93); and bacteriophage TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus; TSS, total suspended solids.
MS2, 1.79 (0.50–3.21) (Petter- ‡ SL, sandy loam; SLCM, sandy loam/compost/mulch; SLVP, sandy loam/vermiculite/perlite.
son et al., 2007).
Like porous pavements, Post-treatment Disinfection
biofiltration systems are a promising treatment option for There is limited knowledge about the levels of pathogenic mi-
storm water harvesting systems. Although further develop- croorganisms in storm water and even less knowledge regarding
ment is required to refine their design with respect to nutrient the removal efficiency of pathogenic microorganisms achieved by
removal, they are able to reliably and efficiently remove sedi- the range of treatment and storage components that are currently
ment and heavy metals. Questions remain about their ability in use in typical storm water harvesting and treatment systems
to remove produce water that satisfies pathogen levels that (McCarthy et al., 2007; Petterson et al., 2007). There is thus un-
satisfy end-use requirements. certainty surrounding the requirement for post-treatment disin-
fection (where the water is disinfected immediately before being
Application of Traditional Physico-chemical Water distributed to its end uses). In the case of Australian systems, the
Treatment Technologies inclusion of a disinfection component has not been a regulatory
Storm water can be treated using the traditional physicochemi- requirement, and limited monitoring has been conducted on
cal processes more commonly used for water supply and wastewa- post-storage levels of microorganisms to determine the need for
ter treatment, although this is less common than the WSUD-based disinfection. In this context, when disinfection is included in
systems described. The physicochemical processes that have been the system it is largely as a precaution rather than as an essential
used to treat storm water include filter screens, sedimentation component of the treatment train. Possible disinfection methods
tanks, lagoons, trickling filters, aeration, activated sludge tanks, and include UV light, chlorination, ozonation, and microfiltration.
more advanced processes such as dissolved air flotation, membrane Emerging technologies, such as solar photocatalysis (Blangis and
filtration, high rate clarification, and biological nutrient removal Legube, 2007), may help to further improve the reliability of
(BNR). A range of proprietary products using physicochemical treatment while reducing its cost.
techniques have been developed in recent years, including filtration Ultraviolet light is the preferred disinfection technique based
systems, catch basin inserts, in-line flocculation, and vortex separa- on cost, environmental risks, ease of operation, and its appro-
tors. A high-profile example of the use of more advanced processes priateness across a wide range of scales (Mitchell et al., 2006).
as part of the treatment train is the Santa Monica SMURRF facil- However, it does not provide residual disinfection, which may be
ity in California, which uses coarse and fine screening, dissolved air required when there is an extensive distribution system (due to
flotation, microfiltration, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection (Boyle the detention time in the distribution network). Ultraviolet treat-
Engineering Corporation, 1999). ment is used at the Santa Monica SMURRF facility, Royal Park
Where separate storm water and wastewater drainage systems Storm water Reuse System (Melbourne, Australia), and the South
are used, the use of advanced treatment techniques is largely re- Australian Museum in Adelaide, whereas filtration is used at
stricted to situations where storm water and wastewater are being Kogarah Town Square (Sydney, Australia) (Mitchell et al., 2006).
harvested for end uses where human contact is intended or pos- Based on the post-storage quality in three storm water har-
sible. Examples of these combined storm water/wastewater har- vesting systems being monitored by the authors (located in Mel-
vesting systems are Homebush Bay and Taronga Zoo in Sydney, bourne, Australia), poststorage turbidity levels are likely to limit the
Australia (Hatt et al., 2006a). These systems typically have a high effectiveness of storm water disinfection unless care is taken to en-
public profile, and the end use is widely distributed; it is therefore sure low turbidity levels are maintained. For example, weekly grab
more difficult to control public access. sample measurements of the turbidity of the storm water delivered
Physico-chemical treatment is typically more expensive than to the UV disinfection unit at the Royal Park Storm water Reuse
traditional biophysical storm water treatment, is less likely to system have ranged from 0 to 64 nephelometric turbidity units,
provide visual amenity benefits (compared, for example, with whereas the UV unit was designed assuming influent turbidity
a landscaped wetland and storage pond), and is more techni- levels of no higher than 10 nephelometric turbidity units.
cally complex to operate (Mitchell et al., 2006). However, these The disinfection performance of this UV unit is being as-
physicochemical treatment systems typically require less land sessed with a challenge test using MS2 bacteriophage, with
area and can be more intensively controlled to produce a more preliminary results of this research reported by Petterson et
constant quality of treated storm water (Hatt et al., 2006a) be- al. (2007). Given the inactivation of MS2 estimated from the
cause they do not rely on the variability of biological processes. challenge test data, the calculated dose–response relationship

Fletcher et al.: Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia S-121

Table 3. Estimated Log10 reduction by Royal Park UV disinfection unit
for selected reference pathogens (Source: Petterson et al, 2007).
Reference organism Log10 reduction at 5.217 mJ cm−2
Campylobacter 2.687
Salmonella 4.591
Adenovirus 0.1252
Rotavirus 0.5321
Cryptosporidium 2.261
was used to estimate the actual dose received within the Royal
Park UV unit. This dose was used to estimate the expected
Log10 reductions of reference pathogens presented in Table 3.
Integration and Scale
The spatial scale of the storm water harvesting systems imple-
mented to date has generally been determined by opportunistic
drivers rather than strategic considerations such as the relation-
ship between scale and cost (Mitchell et al., 2005). As the storm
water harvesting industry matures in the coming years and expe-
rience develops, storm water harvesting may be a component of
long-term water management strategies, supported by govern-
ment policies about the integration of storm water harvested
within integrated urban water management plans.
If this occurs, then strategic considerations about spatial scale
should inform this policy and planning process. Initial desktop
research into this topic has been conducted (Mitchell et al.,
2005), looking at the life cycle cost of 1, 100, 1000, and 10,000
connections in Melbourne, Australia (in this case study, the single
connection systems were rainwater tank systems). The life cycle
costing accounted for the total acquisition, renewal, and decom-
missioning costs of all the capital items and for the maintenance
and operating costs over a 50-yr period, using a discount rate of
5.2% per annum. The systems contained necessary infrastructure
for the collection, storage, and distribution of storm water. Mini-
mal storm water treatment was included beyond that provided as
part of the storage components of the system (primarily due to
sedimentation). A large number of scenarios were analyzed, con-
sidering two residential densities (15 and 40 households per hect-
are), a range of rainwater tank and storm water storage sizes, and
different combinations of end use types (toilet flushing, laundry
cold water, hot water, and garden irrigation).
The results of this analysis provided an upper and lower
bound cost per m3 (Fig. 3). These per m3 costs will be influ-
enced by location specific factors, such as storm water runoff
Fig. 3. Life cycle cost of rain water and storm water harvesting for
a range of residential storm water harvesting scales (adapted
from Mitchell et al., 2005).
S-122 Journal of Environmental Quality • Volume 37 • September–October [Supplement] 2008
and water usage patterns. However, the general relationship be-
tween lifecycle costs and the number of connections is expected
to be generally applicable. This observation is supported by
similar economies of scale trends in gray water reuse (Booker,
1999), with costs falling rapidly as the scale grew from 1 to 100
connections and then leveling out after 1000 connections.
The question of scale has other elements related to respon-
sibility for operation and maintenance and the associated risks
(Coombes and Mitchell, 2006; Cunliffe, 2004). Although the al-
lotment scale may offer flexibility, it relies on the knowledge and
commitment of individual landholders to recognize and manage
these risks. In addition to issues of scale, there is a wide range
of issues relating to the integration of storm water harvesting
systems into the landscape and into the urban water cycle. For
example, urban storm water harvesting systems may be required
to provide additional services, such as flood protection, amenity
and recreational opportunities, aquatic habitats, and protection
of receiving waters (in terms of water quality and restoration of
flow regimes toward their predeveloped levels) (Mitchell et al.,
2007). Rainwater tanks may be designed with a predetermined
freeboard storage to reduce or delay flow peaks (Coombes et al.,
2003). Similarly, retrofit of online storm water harvesting stores
into a retarding basin has been shown to be a feasible means of
reducing peak flows from average recurrence intervals ranging
from 1 to at least 50 yr (Mitchell et al., 2006).
Storm water harvesting systems may also need to be integrat-
ed into the landscape, and thus the design of the storage system
may need to take into account such issues as maintenance of
aquatic vegetation and the aesthetic effect of excessive drawdown
of the store (Mitchell et al., 2007). In many situations, it may
be necessary to separate out the different sources of water (e.g.,
rainwater from roof areas and storm water from other surfaces
such as roads and carparks) in terms of the type of storage and
the likely differences in water quality of the different sources
(Coombes et al., 2003; Coombes and Mitchell, 2006).
Reported Performance
In this section, reported performance of storm water har-
vesting systems is reviewed, with consideration not only of the
primary objective (providing a substitute for potable water) but
also of the integrated objectives, such as environmental impacts,
flooding, and landscape amenity. Data on the performance of
storm water harvesting systems are relatively scarce, with few
systems having been monitored or even documented (Hatt et
al., 2006a). A synthesis of available data is provided here. The
following section, which reports on key research gaps, outlines
some of the most pressing needs for future monitoring.
Water Savings and Financial Benefits
Few studies are available that report on storm water harvesting,
with most reporting only the performance of rainwater harvesting
(i.e., water from rainfall onto roofs) systems. For example, Gardner
et al. (2006) monitored water use from a 22-lot subdivision with
individual household tanks coupled with water-efficient appli-
ances. With large allotments (average size of 1100 m2), the contri-
Table 4. Performance data for storm water reuse systems (adapted from Hatt et al., 2006a). The equivalent cost for TN reduction is based on the
equivalent cost of constructing a storm water treatment wetland to remove the given mass of TN.
Pollution reduction
Capital Mean annual Runoff Potable water Potable water Equivalent cost
Site cost runoff collected Storage volume use reduction cost savings TN† removed for TN reduction
$A‘000 mL % % of runoff volume % % of capital cost kg $ ha−1
Inkerman Oasis 434 7.6 20 1 30 0.1 1.1–9.1 684–2036
Figtree Place 110 6.3 83 5 65 1.4 3.7–31 2636–22,454
Kogarah 629 9.4 85 15 17 0.4 5.6–48 4400–37,700
Oaklands Park 73 75 100 65 – 30.8 53–450 237–2036
Hawkesbury 3900 800 50 11 28 3.1 280–2400 2204–18,889
Homebush Bay 15,800 1179 100 42 50 2.2 825–7074 855–7325
Parafield 4500 2210 100 29 – 14.7 1547–13,262 761–6523
† TN, total nitrogen.

bution of harvested rain water was around 56% for the occupied
lot monitored. Coombes et al. (1999) monitored a system where
rain water was collected in a centralized tank, whereas storm water
(from roads, pathways, carparks, etc.) was conveyed to a detention
basin (but not used). Based on the use of rainwater alone, savings
in potable water demand of around 60 to 65% were obtained.
Hatt et al. (2006a) reviewed the performance data of 77
storm water harvesting systems. Of these, useable data on water
collected and used were available for seven sites (Table 4). At
these sites, the percent collected ranged from 20 to 100% of the
mean annual runoff, and the reductions in potable water demand
ranged from 17 to 65%. Generally, the sites that collected a low
proportion of mean annual runoff were those that were retrofit-
ted to an existing storm water treatment facility rather than pur-
pose built for the harvesting of storm water. Both figures depend
on the size of the storage relative to the mean annual runoff vol-
ume, which in turn depends on site constraints.
Hatt et al.’s review showed that the capital cost of storm
water harvesting systems was related not only to catchment
size; factors such as treatment method, land characteristics
(slope, presence of rock, etc.), and storage type also affected
the cost. The value of potable water savings (Table 4) varied
greatly, from 0.1 to 30.8% of the system’s capital cost. Based
on these figures, the payback period (based simplistically on
the capital cost alone) ranged from 3 to 950 yr.
Hatt et al. (2006a) note that there are few data available on
the costs and benefits of such systems. Of the systems reviewed
by Hatt et al. (2004a; 2006a), few gave indications of the unit
cost of water produced. Each of the three that did (Homebush
Bay and Parafield in Australia and Santa Monica in the USA)
showed different outcomes. For example, the Homebush Bay
system cost twice as much as the retail cost of normal reticulat-
ed town water (but was sold at 15% less than the mains water
price to encourage uptake). The Santa Monica system provided
a near-neutral outcome, whereas the Parafield system produced
water at 30% of the cost of the alternative (pumping from a
nearby river). This diversity shows that local context is critical
in determining the financial outcomes.
Several authors have asserted that analysis of financial bene-
fits purely in terms of potable water savings provides an incom-
plete picture because it excludes the externalities (Coombes et
al., 2002), such as reductions in the size of downstream storm
water conveyance and treatment infrastructure and avoiding
the construction of alternative water supply infrastructure (such
as a new dam). Tools such as Triple Bottom Line Assessment
(Taylor and Wong, 2002) may help to overcome the challenge
of accounting for all costs and benefits.
Environmental Benefits
Two categories of environmental benefit are commonly
demonstrated from storm water harvesting systems: (i) at-
tenuation of postdevelopment hydrology and (ii) reductions
in pollutant concentrations and/or loads. Most of the studies
of these impacts rely on modeling, with little or no monitor-
ing data available (Hatt et al., 2006a).
The harvesting of storm water will affect downstream water
quality. It will reduce pollutant loads to receiving waterways as a
function of the water taken away (depending on the use and dis-
posal of that harvested water). For example, if urban storm water
has a typical concentration of around 2.5 mg L−1 total N (Duncan,
2006; Taylor et al., 2005; Brombach et al., 2005), each mL of wa-
ter harvested will reduce the N load to the receiving water by 2.5
kg. Hatt et al. (2006a) found significant reductions in N loads to
receiving water and quantified the equivalent cost of this reduction
using well established costs for constructing storm water treatment
wetlands. In the best case, this resulted in an equivalent reduction
in required storm water treatment of A$37,000 per hectare.
The influence of storm water harvesting on pollutant concen-
trations is more complex. If only roof water, with its lower concen-
trations of particulate pollutants (Duncan, 2006), were harvested,
the concentration at the receiving water may increase. This is un-
likely to be the case when harvesting of overall storm water runoff.
However, no known monitoring data exist on the impact of storm
water harvesting on downstream pollutant concentrations.
Storm water harvesting systems can have a significant benefit
in terms of reducing flow peaks downstream. For example, even
a distributed network of rainwater tanks specially designed to
provide permanent freeboard by having a “trickle-outlet” at a
predetermined point below the top of the tank has been shown to
significantly reduce peak flows (Hardy et al., 2004). More detailed
modeling showed reductions of around 40 to 50% in the 3-mo
average recurrence interval peak flow, dropping to around 5 to
10% for the 100-yr average recurrence interval event. The influ-
ence of storm water harvesting on flow behavior was also examined
by Fletcher et al. (2007). They used the concept of “environmen-
tal flows,” which is more typically used in the rural context, to

Fletcher et al.: Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia S-123

determine the amount and temporal regime of flows necessary
to sustain healthy aquatic ecosystems (Poff and Allan, 1995). In
the urban context, with increased runoff from impervious areas,
Fletcher et al. (2007) determined to what extent storm water
harvesting could be used to restore those flows to predevelopment
levels. The feasibility of such a strategy varied with climate (harder
in subtropical than temperate climates), whereas high levels of
urban density (as measured by imperviousness), while increasing
the magnitude of flow reduction required, also had the advantage
of a higher water demand. They found that in some cases, excessive
harvesting could result in an overextraction of flow and recom-
mended that for each catchment an analysis of the environmental
flow requirements be undertaken to set operating rules for any
proposed storm water harvesting system. The aim should be to
emulate the predevelopment flow regime (based on indicators such
as frequency of surface runoff to streams, peak flows for a range of
recurrence intervals, length of dry and wet spells, etc.). This should
include consideration of ground water hydrology, with an aim be-
ing to emulate the predevelopment infiltration of water to ground
water on a catchment scale. No known studies exist that relate the
health of aquatic ecosystems to the construction and operation of
storm water harvesting systems within the catchment.
Social Acceptance
Several studies have been undertaken on the social acceptance
of storm water harvesting. Generally, there is a preference for us-
ing storm water over wastewater given that the “history” of water
significantly affects its acceptance by the community (McIntosh
and Pugh, 1991; Po et al., 2004). Generally, perceived health
risks are lower for use of storm water than they are for reuse of
recycled wastewater (ACTEW, 1994; ARCWIS, 1999). For ex-
ample, one study in Perth showed 96% support for using storm
water for garden watering and 95% support for its use for toilet
flushing. Support for personal or clothes washing was lower (at
50 and 68%, respectively), but still much higher than for waste-
water. Community support for the use of rain water (collected
from roofs only) is generally higher than that for general storm
water runoff (Coombes and Mitchell, 2006). Community sup-
port has been shown to be higher for large-scale systems, where
there is a perception that there will be a high level of regulation
and risk management (Mitchell et al., 2005).
Some impressive examples of the development of large-scale
storm water reuse exist that demonstrate community acceptance
of the approach. For example, de Graaf et al. (2007) show the
transformation of Rotterdam’s water supply system to one that
relies significantly on storm water harvesting and that provides a
wide range of other social benefits. Although there are few such
examples, it seems clear that public acceptance of storm water
harvesting is relatively high but is likely to depend on issues of
culture and local context (Brown and Davies, 2007).
Remaining Challenges and Knowledge Gaps
Data Requirements for Assessing Reliability and Risk
Largely due to limited experience in storm water harvesting
and the lack of monitoring data, there is inadequate scientific
S-124 Journal of Environmental Quality • Volume 37 • September–October [Supplement] 2008
underpinning to enable these schemes to be designed, main-
tained, and operated to ensure adequate long-term performance
in terms of human health and environmental risks (Hatt et al.,
2004a; 2006a). Inadequate data exist on the reliability of these
systems in terms of end use water quality and the supply of
storm water. Due to the difficulty and costs of data collection
and analysis, very few storm water recycling systems have been
monitored. This is of serious concern for the following reasons:
(i) These systems are built to provide potable substitution, but
there is a dearth of quantification of the actual volumes of pota-
ble substitution achieved compared with design estimates, and
(ii) there are insufficient data to conduct robust, quantifiable
assessments of likely environmental and human health risks for
existing and future storm water harvesting projects.
As a result, the monitoring of storm water harvesting sys-
tems and the assessment of risks and reliability is an active
area of research. For example, a recently commenced project is
monitoring three operational storm water harvesting systems
and the performance of biofilters for storm water treatment
and harvesting (Table 2). In the interim, design will continue
to be based on incomplete information.
Data Requirements for Assessing Lifecycle Costs
Assessing the cost of storm water harvesting systems has
proven to be complex, and as a result there has been relatively
little progress in capturing reliable data on capital and operat-
ing costs of even storm water treatment systems (Fletcher et al.,
2005; Fletcher and Taylor, 2007; Rozis and Rahman, 2002), let
alone storm water treatment systems (Hatt et al., 2006a). Because
storm water harvesting systems are a relatively recent area of
endeavor, there has been inadequate time for reliable datasets to
be obtained (Gardner et al., 2006; Lloyd et al., 2001a, 2002a). A
more fundamental limitation is the difficulty in quantifying the
externalities, such as the reduction in environmental degradation
to downstream receiving waters by retaining storm water (Lloyd
et al., 2002a; 2001b; Prato, 1999). Although the use of broader
assessment tools (e.g., Triple Bottom Line assessment protocols
[Taylor and Fletcher, 2006]) is a critical goal, there remains the
basic need to have data with which the economic performance
of storm water harvesting systems can be assessed and later pre-
dicted. Hatt et al. (2006a) concluded that without such data on
which to base investment decisions, governments and private
investors will be reluctant to fund storm water harvesting. It is
imperative that attention be paid to the development and ap-
plication of standard protocols for the collection of lifecycle cost
data for storm water harvesting systems.
Storm Water End Use Water Quality Guidelines
Internationally, there has been a general lack of end use and
receiving water quality guidelines that have been specifically devel-
oped for the harvesting of storm water. In lieu of these, wastewater
reuse and drinking water guidelines have often been used to pro-
vide end use water quality design targets (Hatt et al., 2006a).
In Australia, Phase 2 of the national guidelines for water recy-
cling (NRMMC and EPHC, 2006), which are currently in devel-
opment, will include specific guidance for storm water harvesting.
The risk management taken in these new guidelines represents a
departure from more prescriptive guideline approaches previously
used in the field of water reuse. However, there is considerable ex-
perience in the use of risk management frameworks; for example,
the food industry has used the HACCP (hazard analysis and criti-
cal control point) system for some time, and the HACCP is seen
internationally as best practice for ensuring food safety (Codex
Alimentarius Commission, 1997; NRMMC and EPHC, 2006).
The same technique has recently been successfully applied to
storm water harvesting, using data on the variability of inflow and
outflow pollutant concentrations (Page et al., 2006). Quantitative
Risk Assessment and Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment are
other tools that have been widely used in the area of water reuse
(NHMRC and NRMMC, 2004; NRMMC and EPHC, 2006). It
is likely that in the short term, the limiting factor in the application
of these new guidelines for storm water harvesting will be the lack
of data that can be used for robust quantitative risk assessment.
Water–Energy Tradeoffs
There is growing recognition of the need to assess the energy
requirements of water management and to consider potential
water and energy tradeoffs in planning and design, aiming to
maximize the water yield while minimizing the embodied energy
and the operational energy of a system (Gardner et al., 2006).
Based on current practice, storm water management rep-
resents a modest proportion of the total operational energy
of an urban water system as gravity drainage and biophysical
storm water treatment (when treatment occurs) dominate. In
contrast, a storm water harvesting system may involve consider-
able pumping, and treatment may use more or less operational
energy depending on the processes used (Grant et al., 2006).
However, the embodied energy and operational energy intensi-
ty (defined here as the amount of operational energy consumed
per unit of water supplied to the end uses) of a storm water
harvesting scheme should be assessed relative to that of the
other sources of water being considered or substituted.
If the storm water is being used for irrigation, some of the
energy requirements of the harvesting system could be offset by
energy savings in terms of summer cooling of buildings (Mitchell
et al., 2007). This is because urban irrigation has the potential to
passively control urban microclimate through evapotranspiration.
Retrofit Technologies
If storm water harvesting is to move beyond its present
application primarily in greenfield sites, there is a need for
technologies that allow integrated storm water harvesting,
treatment, storage, and distribution systems to be retrofitted
into existing urban areas. For example, where storm water
treatment systems exist, there is a need to be able to retrofit
the necessary additional treatment technologies to meet local
end-use requirements and add storage and distribution capa-
bility. Although there are significant advances being made in
this area, such as the adaptation of porous pavements and bio-
filtration systems, there remains the need for a wide range of
suitable technologies to overcome the constraints imposed by
retrofit conditions. If these systems are to be readily adopted,
Fletcher et al.: Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia
they need to become able to be readily deployed in an “off-
the-shelf ” manner by reducing complexities in the design and
construction process.
References
Aalderink, R.H., L. Lijklema, and J.B. Ellis (ed.) 1990. Urban storm water
quality and ecological effects upon receiving waters. Vol. 22 (10/11).
International Assoc. of Water Pollution Research and Control,
Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
ACTEW. 1994. Australian Capital Territory future water supply strategy: our
future water supply. ACT Electricity and Water, Canberra, Australia.
ARCWIS. 1999. The social basis for urban water provision in the 21st century.
Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO, Perth, Australia.
Arthington, A.H., D.A. Milton, and R.J. McKay. 1983. Effects of urban
development and habitat alterations on the distribution and abundance
of native and exotic freshwater fish in the Brisbane region, Queensland.
Aust. J. Ecol. 8:87–101.
Auckland Regional Council. 2002. Storm water management devices: Design
guidelines manual. Revision to Technical Publication 10. Auckland
Regional Council, Auckland, New Zealand.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Yearbook 2006. Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Canberra, Australia.
Berbee, R., G. Rijs, R. de Brouwer, and L. van Velzen. 1999. Characterisation
and treatment of runoff from highways in the Netherlands paved with
impervious and pervious asphalt. Water Environ. Res. 71:183–190.
Blangis, D., and B. Legube. 2007. Traitement des eaux de pluie par
photocatalyse solaire. J. Eur. Hydrol. 38:121–130.
Booker, N. 1999. Estimating the economics of scale of greywater reuse systems.
Program Rep. FE-88. CSIRO Molecular Science, Melbourne, Australia.
Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream channel incision in response following drainage
basin urbanization. Water Resour. Bull. 26:407–417.
Booth, D.B., and C.R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems:
Degradation thresholds, storm water detention, and the limits of
mitigation. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 33:1077–1090.
Bourguès, S., and B.T. Hart. 2007. Nitrogen removal capacity of wetlands:
Sediment versus epiphytic biofilm. Water Sci. Technol. 55:175–182.
Boyd, M.J., M.C. Bufill, and R.M. Kness. 1993. Pervious and impervious
runoff in urban catchments. Hydrol. Sci. J. 38:463–478.
Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1999. Engineering report for dry-weather
runoff, reclamation, storage, pumping, distribution, and non-potable water
use area facilities: Report No. FR-C77-100-02. City of Santa Monica, CA.
Brombach, H., G. Weiss, and S. Fuchs. 2005. A new database on urban
runoff pollution: Comparison of separate and combined sewer systems.
Water Sci. Technol. 51:119–128.
Brown, R., and J. Clarke. 2007. Transition to water sensitive urban design;
the story of Melbourne, Australia. Melbourne: Facility for Advancing
Water Biofiltration, and National Urban Water Governance Program,
Melbourne, Australia.
Brown, R.R., and P. Davies. 2007. Understanding community receptivity to water
re-use: Ku-ring-gai Council case study. Water Sci. Technol. 55:283–290.
Burton, G.A.J., and R.E. Pitt. 2001. Storm water effects handbook: A
toolbox for watershed managers, scientists, and engineers. CRC Press
LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
Carleton, J.N., T.J. Grizzard, A.N. Godrej, H.E. Post, L. Lampe, and P.P.
Kenel. 2000. Performance of constructed wetlands in treating urban
storm water runoff. Water Environ. Res. 72:295–304.
Carlson, T.N., and S.T. Arthur. 2000. The impact of land use—land cover
changes due to urbanization on surface microclimate and hydrology: A
satellite perspective. Global Planet. Change 25:49–65.
CIRIA. 2000a. Sustainable urban drainage systems: Design manual for
England and Wales. CIRIA Report No. C522. London, UK.
CIRIA. 2000b. Sustainable urban drainage systems: Design manual for Scotland
and Northern Ireland. CIRIA Report No. C521. Dundee, Scotland.
CIRIA. 2001. Sustainable urban drainage systems: Best practice manual for
England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. CIRIA Rep. No.
CR086A. London, UK.
Codex Alimentarius Commission. 1997. Hazard analysis and critical control
point (HACCP) systems and guidelines for their application: Annex to
CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev 3. Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/
Y1579E/y1579e03.htm (verified 3 Apr. 2008). FAO, Rome, Italy.
S-125
Codner, G.P., E.M. Laurenson, and R.G. Mein. 1988. Hydrologic effects
of urbanization: A case study. p. 201–205. In Proc. Hydrol. Water
Resour. Symp., Canberra, Australia. 1–3 Feb. 1988. The Institution of
Engineers Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2002. The value of water: Inquiry into
Australia’s urban water management. Rep. of the Senate Environment,
Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts Reference
Committee. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, Australia.
Coombes, P.J., J.R. Argue, and G. Kuczera. 1999. Figtree Place: A case study
in water sensitive urban development. Urban Water 1:335–343.
Coombes, P.J., A. Frost, G. Kuczera, G. O’Loughlin, and S. Lees. 2003. The
impact of rainwater tanks in the Upper Parramatta River catchment.
Aust. J. Water Resour. 7:121–129.
Coombes, P.J., G. Kuczera, and J.D. Kalma. 2002. An evaluation of the benefits
of source control measures at the regional scale. Urban Water 4:307–320.
Coombes, P.J., and V.G. Mitchell. 2006. Roofwater, storm water, and
wastewater reuse. In T.H.F. Wong (ed.) Australian runoff quality. The
Institution of Engineers Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Cunliffe, D.A. 2004. Guidance on the use of rainwater tanks. EnHealth
(Australian government, National Public Health Partnership), Canberra.
Davies, J.W., C.J. Pratt, and M.A. Scott. 2002. Laboratory study of
permeable pavement systems to support hydraulic modelling. 10 p. In
Proc. 9ICUD. 8–13 Sept. 2002. Portland, OR.
Davis, A.P., M. Shokouhian, H. Sharma, and C. Minami. 2001. Laboratory
study of biological retention for urban storm water management. Water
Environ. Res. 73:13–26.
Davis, A.P., M. Shokouhian, H. Sharma, and C. Minami. 2006. Water
quality improvement through bioretention media: Nitrogen and
phosphorus removal. Water Environ. Res. 78:284–293.
Davis, A.P., M. Shokouhian, H. Sharma, C. Minami, and D. Winogradoff.
2003. Water quality improvement through bioretention: Lead, copper,
and zinc removal. Water Environ. Res. 75:73–82.
de Graaf, R., R. van der Brugge, J. Lankester, W. van der Vliet, and L.
Valkenburg. 2007. Local water resources and urban renewal: A Rotterdam
case study. p. 2189–2196. In Novatech 2007; Sustainable techniques and
strategies in urban water management. 25–28 June 2007. Lyon, France.
Denman, L., P. May, and P.F. Breen. 2007. An investigation of the potential
to use street trees and their root zone soils to remove nitrogen from
urban storm water. Aust. J. Water Resour. 10:303–311.
Department of Environment and Conservation. 2006. Managing urban
storm water: Harvesting and reuse. Dep. of Environment and
Conservation, NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Department of Environmental Resources. 1999. Low-impact development:
An integrated design approach. Dep. of Environmental Resources,
Prince George’s County, MD.
Driver, N.E., and B.M. Troutman. 1989. Regression models for estimating
urban storm-runoff quality and quantity in the United States. J.
Hydrol. 109:221–236.
Duncan, H.P. 2006. Urban storm water quality. In T.H.F. Wong (ed.)
Australian runoff quality. Available at http://www.arq.org.au) (verified 3
Apr. 2008). The Institution of Engineers Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Farm, C. 2002. Evaluation of the accumulation of sediment and heavy metals
in a storm-water detention pond. Water Sci. Technol. 45:105–112.
Fletcher, T.D., H.P. Duncan, P. Poelsma, and S.D. Lloyd. 2005. Storm water
flow and quality, and the effectiveness of non-proprietary storm water
treatment measures- a review and gap analysis. CRCCH Rep. 04/08.
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Fletcher, T.D., G. Mitchell, A. Deletic, A.R. Ladson, and A. Séven. 2007.
Is storm water harvesting beneficial to urban waterway environmental
flows? Water Sci. Technol. 55:265–272.
Fletcher, T.D., and A.C. Taylor. 2007. Estimating life-cycle costs of storm
water treatment measures. Aust. J. Water Resour. 11:79–92.
Gardner, E., G. Millar, C. Christiansen, A. Vieritz, and H. Chapman. 2006.
Energy and water use at a WSUD subdivision in Brisbane, Australia.
Aust. J. Water Resour. 10:283–291.
Grant, T., L. Ospray, A. Grant, A. Sharma, V.G. Mitchell, and F. Pamminger.
2006. Life cycle aspects of alternative water and sewage servicing. p.
121–128. In Proc. 7th Urban Drainage Modelling and 4th Water
Sensitive Urban Design Conf. (Vol. 2), Melbourne, Australia. 3–7 Apr.
2006. International Water Association, London, UK.
Grimmond, G.S.B., and T.R. Oke. 1991. An evaporation-interception model
S-126 Journal of Environmental Quality • Volume 37 • September–October [Supplement] 2008
for urban areas. Water Resour. Res. 27:1739–1755.
Groffman, P.M., N.J. Boulware, W.C. Zipperer, R.V. Pouyat, L.E. Band, and
M.F. Colosimo. 2002. Soil nitrogen cycle processes in urban riparian
zones. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36:4547–4552.
Harbott, E.L., and M.R. Grace. 2005. Extracellular enzyme response to
bioavailability of dissolved organic C in streams of varying catchment
urbanization. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:588–601.
Hardy, M., P. Coombes, and G. Kuczera. 2004. An investigation of estate
level impacts of spatially distributed rainwater tanks. p. 492–503. In
Int. Conf. WSUD, Adelaide, Australia. 21–25 Nov. 2004.
Harremoes, P. 1997. Integrated water and waste management. Water Sci.
Technol. 35(9):11–20.
Hatt, B.E., A. Deletic, and T.D. Fletcher. 2004a. Integrated storm water
treatment and re-use systems– an inventory of Australian practice.
CRCCH Report No.04/1. Available at http://www.catchment.crc.
org.au/archive/pubs/prog4.html (verified 3 Apr. 2008). Cooperative
Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Hatt, B.E., A. Deletic, and T.D. Fletcher. 2006a. A review of integrated storm
water treatment and re-use in Australia. J. Environ. Manage. 76:102–113.
Hatt, B.E., A. Deletic, and T.D. Fletcher. 2007. Storm water reuse:
Designing biofiltration systems for reliable treatment. Water Sci.
Technol. 55:201–209.
Hatt, B.E., T.D. Fletcher, and A. Deletic. 2008. Hydraulic and treatment
performance of fine media storm water filters. Environ. Sci. Technol.
42:2535–2541.
Hatt, B.E., T.D. Fletcher, C.J. Walsh, and S.L. Taylor. 2004b. The influence
of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and
loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ. Manage. 34:112–124.
Hatt, B.E., M. Siriwardene, A. Deletic, and T.D. Fletcher. 2006b. Filter media
for storm water treatment and recycling: The influence of hydraulic
properties of flow on pollutant removal. Water Sci. Technol. 54:263–271.
Henderson, C., M. Greenway, and I. Phillips. 2007. Removal of dissolved
nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon from storm water by biofiltration
mesocosms. Water Sci. Technol. 55:183–191.
House, C.H., S.W. Broome, and M.T. Hoover. 1994. Treatment of nitrogen
and phosphorus by a constructed upland-wetland wastewater treatment
system. Water Sci. Technol. 29:177–184.
Hsieh, C.H., and A.P. Davis. 2005. Evaluation and optimization of
bioretention media for treatment of urban storm water runoff. J.
Environ. Eng. 131:1521–1531.
Hunt, W.F., A.R. Jarrett, J.T. Smith, and L.J. Sharkey. 2006. Evaluating
bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in
North Carolina. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 132:600–608.
Kim, H.H., E.A. Seagren, and A.P. Davis. 2003. Engineered bioretention
for removal of nitrate from storm water runoff. Water Environ. Res.
75:355–367.
Konrad, C.P., D.B. Booth, and S.J. Burges. 2005. Effects of urban
development in the Puget Lowland, Washington, on interannual
streamflow patterns: Consequences for channel form and
streambed disturbance. Water Resour. Res. 41:W07009
doi:10.1029/2005WR004097.
Ladson, A.R., S.D. Lloyd, C.J. Walsh, and T.D. Fletcher. 2007. Scenarios
for redesigning an urban drainage system to reduce runoff frequency
and restore stream ecological condition. Water Pract. Technol. 2(2):
doi:10.2166/wpt.2007.0053.
Lenat, D.R., and J.K. Crawford. 1994. Effects of land use on water
quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams.
Hydrobiologia 294:185–199.
Leopold, L.B. 1968. Hydrology for urban land planning: A guidebook on the
hydrological effects of urban land use. Circ. No. 554. U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, DC.
Lloyd, S.D., T.H.F. Wong, and C.J. Chesterfield. 2001a. Opportunities and
impediments to water sensitive urban design. p. 302–309. In Proc.
2nd. South Pacific Storm water Conf.: Rain the forgotten resource.
Auckland, New Zealand.
Lloyd, S.D., T.H.F. Wong, and C.J. Chesterfield. 2002a. Water sensitive urban
design- A storm water management perspective. Industry Rep. No. 02/10.
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Lloyd, S.D., T.H.F. Wong, T. Liebig, and M. Becker. 2002b. Sediment
characteristics in storm water pollution control ponds. Aust. J. Water
Resour. 5:137–145.
Lloyd, S.D., T.H.F. Wong, and B. Porter. 2001b. Implementing an
 ecologically sustainable storm water drainage system in a residential
development. Water Sci. Technol. 45:1–7.
Marsalek, J., and P.M. Marsalek. 1997. Characteristics of sediments from a
storm water management pond. Water Sci. Technol. 36:117–122.
McCarthy, D., V.G. Mitchell, A. Deletic, and C. Diaper. 2007. Urban storm
water Escherichia coli levels: Factors that influence them. Water Sci.
Technol. 56:27–34.
McIntosh, G.F., and S.J. Pugh. 1991. A preliminary assessment of the
reuse potential of effluent and urban storm water in South Australia.
Engineering and Water Supply Dep., Adelaide, South Australia.
McRae, B. 2002. Managing Manly Beach from source to sea. Water, March
2002:99–101.
Meyer, J.L., M.J. Paul, and W.K. Taulbee. 2005. Stream ecosystem function
in urban landscapes. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:601–612.
Mitchell, V.G., H. Cleugh, G.S.B. Grimmond, and J. Xu. 2007. Linking
urban water balance and energy balance models to analyse urban design
options. Hydrol. Processes doi:10.1002/hyp.6868.
Mitchell, V.G., A. Deletic, T.D. Fletcher, and B.E. Hatt. 2007. Achieving
multiple benefits from storm water reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 55:135–144.
Mitchell, V.G., B.E. Hatt, A. Deletic, T.D. Fletcher, D.T. McCarthy, and
M. Maygar. 2006. Integrated storm water treatment and harvesting:
Technical guidance report. ISWR Rep. 06/05. Inst. for Sustainable
Water Resources, Monash Univ., Melbourne.
Mitchell, V.G., T.A. McMahon, and R.G. Mein. 2003. Components of the total
water balance of an urban catchment. Environ. Manage. 32:735–746.
Mitchell, V.G., A. Taylor, T.D. Fletcher, and A. Deletic. 2005. Storm
water reuse- Potable water substitution for Melbourne. ISWR Rep.
No. 05/12. Inst. for Sustainable Water Resources, Monash Univ.,
Melbourne, Australia.
Morgan, R.P., and S.F. Cushman. 2005. Urbanization effects on Maryland
fishes. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:643–655.
Newton, D., G.A. Jenkins, and I. Philips. 2003. The potential of porous
pavement for urban storm water management. In 28th Int. Hydrol.
Water Resour. Symp., Wollongong, Australia. 10–14 Nov. 2003.
NHMRC and NRMMC. 2004. Australian drinking water guidelines. National
Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management
Ministerial Council, Government of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Niemczynowicz, J. 1996. Megacities from a water perspective. Water Int.
21:198–205.
NRMMC and EPHC. 2006. Australian guidelines for water recycling:
Managing health and environmental risks (Phase 1). Environmental
Protection and Heritage Council and Natural Resources Management
Ministerial Council, Canberra, Australia.
Oke, T.R. 1987. Boundary layer climates. Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
Olivera, F., and B.B. DeFee. 2007. Urbanization and its effect on runoff in the
Whiteoak Bayou watershed, Texas. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43:170–182.
Page, D., P. Dillon, M. Purdie, and S. Rinck-Pfeiffer. 2006. A risk management
method for storm water reuse. p. 65–72. In Proc. 7th Urban Drainage
Modelling and 4th Water Sensitive Urban Design Conf. (Vol. 1), Melbourne,
Australia. 3–7 Apr. 2006. International Water Assoc., London, UK.
Pagotto, C., M. Legret, and P. Le Cloirec. 2000. Comparison of the hydraulic
behaviour and quality of highway runoff water according to the type of
pavement. Water Res. 34:4446–4454.
Petterson, S.R., C.M. Davies, N.J. Ashbolt, V.G. Mitchell, G.D. Taylor, and
J. Lewis. 2007. Quantifying microbial health risks for non-potable
reuse of storm water. In REUSE07 AWA Nation. Water Reuse and
Recycling Conf., 16–18 July 2007, Sydney, Australia.
Po, M., J. Kaercher, and B.E. Nancarrow. 2004. Literature review of the factors
influencing public perceptions of water reuse. Australian Water Conserv.
and Reuse Res. Program, CSIRO and Australian Water Assoc., Canberra.
Poff, N., and J. Allan. 1995. Functional organisation of stream fish
assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76:606–627.
Prato, T. 1999. Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem
management. Ecol. Econ. 30:207–222.
Pratt, C.J. 1999. Use of permeable, reservoir pavement constructions for storm
water treatment and storage for re-use. Water Sci. Technol. 39:145–151.
Pratt, J.M., R.A. Coler, and P.J. Godfrey. 1981. Ecological effects of urban
storm water runoff on benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting the Green
Fletcher et al.: Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia
River, Massachusetts. Hydrobiologia 83:29–42.
Pratt, C.J., J.D.G. Mantle, and P.A. Schofield. 1995. UK research into the
performance of permeable pavement, reservoir structures in controlling
storm water discharge quantity and quality. Water Sci. Technol. 32:63–69.
Radcliffe, J. 2004. Water recycling in Australia; a review undertaken by
the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Parkville.
Read, J., T. Wevill, T.D. Fletcher, and A. Deletic. 2007. Variation among
plant species in pollutant removal from storm water in biofiltration
systems. Water Res. 42:893–902.
Rose, S., and N.E. Peters. 2001. Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the
Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): A comparative hydrological approach.
Hydrol. Processes 15:1441–1457.
Roy, A.H., M.C. Freeman, B.J. Freeman, S.J. Wenger, W.E. Ensign, and J.L. Meyer.
2005. Investigating hydrological alteration as a mechanism of fish assemblage
shifts in urbanizing streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:656–678.
Rozis, N., and A. Rahman. 2002. A simple method for life cycle cost
assessment of water sensitive urban design. In Proc. 9ICUD. 8–13 Sept.
2002, Portland, OR.
Serena, M., and V. Pettigrove. 2005. Relationship of sediment toxicants
and water quality to the distribution of platypus populations in urban
streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:679–689.
Soranno, P.A., S.L. Hubler, S.R. Carpenter, and R.C. Lathrop. 1996.
Phosphorus loads to surface waters: A simple model to account for
spatial pattern of land use. Ecol. Appl. 6:865–878.
Taylor, A.C., and T.D. Fletcher. 2006. ‘Triple-bottom-line’ assessment of
urban storm water projects. Water Sci. Technol. 54:459–466.
Taylor, G.D., T.D. Fletcher, T.H.F. Wong, and P.F. Breen. 2005. Nitrogen
composition in urban runoff- Implications for storm water
management. Water Res. 39:1982–1989.
Taylor, S.L., S.C. Roberts, C.J. Walsh, and B.E. Hatt. 2004. Catchment
urbanisation and increased benthic algal biomass in streams: Linking
mechanisms to management. Freshwater Biol. 49:835–851.
Taylor, A., and T.H.F. Wong. 2002. Non-structural storm water quality best
management practices- Guidelines. CRCCH Report No. 03/14. Cooperative
Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne, Australia.
Thomas, J.F., J. Gomboso, J.E. Oliver, and V.A. Ritchie. 1997. Wastewater
re-use, storm water management, and the national water reform
agenda. Research Position Paper 1. CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra.
United Nations. 2008. State of the world populations 2007; unleashing
the potential of urban growth. Available at http://www.unfpa.org/
swp/2007/english/introduction.html (verified 8 May 2008).
Vlachos, E., and B. Braga. 2001. The challenge of urban water management.
In C. Maksimovic and J.A. Tejada-Guibert (ed.) Frontiers in urban
water management. UNESCO-IHP and IWA Publishing, London.
Walsh, C.J. 2004. Protection of instream biodiversity from urban impacts: To
minimize urban density or to improve drainage design? Mar. Freshw.
Res. 55:317–326.
Walsh, C.J., T.D. Fletcher, and A.R. Ladson. 2005a. Stream restoration in urban
catchments through redesigning storm water systems: Looking to the
catchment to save the stream. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:690–705.
Walsh, C.J., A.W. Leonard, A.R. Ladson, and T.D. Fletcher. 2004. Urban storm
water and the ecology of streams. Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia.
Walsh, C.J., A.H. Roy, J.W. Feminella, P.D. Cottingham, P.M. Groffman, and
R.P. Morgan. 2005b. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge
and the search for a cure. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 24:706–723.
Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehi, and R. Gatti. 1997. Influences of watershed
land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin Streams.
Fisheries 22:6–12.
WEF and ASCE. 1998. Urban runoff quality management New York, USA: Water
Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. 23 and American Society of
Civil Engineers Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87.
Wong, T.H.F. (ed.). 2006. Australian runoff quality. Inst. of Engineers,
Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Wong, T.H.F., S.D. Lloyd, and P.F. Breen. 2000. Water sensitive road
design- Design options for improving storm water quality of road
runoff. CRCCH Report No. 00/1. Cooperative Research Centre for
Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
S-127