Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report ...documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/527611468269097065/pdf/806910… · World Bank Group Bandar Lampung Water Supply and

World Bank Group

Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment

Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report

REP/277440/R001

Final | 12 August 2013

Job number 277440

Arup Singapore Pte Ltd

Reg No 200100731M

Arup Singapore Pte Ltd

10 Hoe Chiang Road

#26-01 Keppel Towers

Singapore 089315

www.arup.com

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

REP/277440/R001 | Final | 12 August 2013

J:\227000\227440-00 BANDAR LAMPUNG POTENTIAL\WORK\INTERNAL\REPORTS\FINAL REPORT 09 MAY 2013\FINAL REPORT REV D 120813 (PUBLIC ISSUE).DOCX

Disclaimer

The analysis in this Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report has been

prepared by ARUP for the sole use of the party or parties to whom it is addressed and for the

purposes specified. Neither the whole nor any part of this report nor any reference may be included

in or with or attached to any document, published, quoted or disseminated or used for any purpose

without ARUP's written consent to the form and context in which it appears. ARUP accepts no

responsibility, for any loss or claim occasioned by any person acting or refraining from action as a

result of reliance on the report other than the World Bank.

The [statements, opinions and forecasts] attributable to ARUP are given in good faith and on the

basis that such [statements, opinions and forecasts] are neither false nor misleading in any way. In

producing this report, ARUP has considered and relied on information provided by the World Bank,

PDAM and Balai Besar as well as information available in the public domain.

While every effort has been made to verify information, neither ARUP or its directors, other officers,

employees or consultants accepts any liability for its accuracy nor do any of them warrant that

ARUP's inquiries have revealed all matters which a more extensive examination may disclose.

ARUP has no pecuniary interest, other than to the extent of the professional fees for the preparation

of this report, or other interest in the World Bank that could reasonably be regarded as affecting

ARUP's ability to undertake a water and supply demand assessment for the city of Bandar Lampung.

Any right or remedy conferred on the World Bank by applicable law as a result of the information

contained in the Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report or any other

information being incomplete or inaccurate is limited to the full extent permitted by law.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) or the World Bank Group.

World Bank Group Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand AssessmentBandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report



Contents

Page

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4 1

1.1 Background and Problem Description 4

1.2 Study Scope 4

1.3 Previous Studies 4

1.4 Site inspections 7

1.5 Stakeholder Consultation 8

Description of Study Area 9 2

2.1 Study Location 9

2.2 Topography and Climate 10

2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology 12

2.5 Water Resources 14

2.6 Social-Economic 15

Existing Water Supply in Bandar Lampung 17 3

3.1 Existing Water Supply Sources 17

3.2 National Regulations 20

Demand Projections 22 4

4.1 Population 22

4.2 Water Demand Projections 23

4.3 Willingness to connect 27

4.4 Tariff Demand Sensitivity Model 29

4.5 PDAM Piped Supply 32

4.6 Reducing NRW to Influence Water Demand 34

Future Water Supply Sources 35 5

5.1 Options for Water Supply 35

5.2 Summary of Water Supply Options 47

Conclusions 52 6

Recommended Additional Studies / Investigations 55 7

Technical Principles for Memo of Understanding 56 8

8.1 Introduction 56

8.2 Federal and Local Government Structure for the Management of Water Resources 57




8.3 Way Sekampung Basin Water Allocation 60

8.4 Technical Principals for Memorandum of Understanding 61

References

Tables Table 1: Current PDAM Water Supply System

Table 2: MARS Survey – Potable Water Sources

Table 3: Past Population Growth

Table 4: Bandar Lampung City Population Projection

Table 5: Per Capita Water Demand Scenarios

Table 6: Estimated Historical Average Non-Revenue Water

Table 7: Future NRW Projections

Table 8: Average Water Demand Projections

Table 9: PDAM Pipe Water Supply

Table 10: Summary of Way Sekampung Water Balance

Table 11: Costs comparison of traditional water treatment plants and desalination plants

Table 12: Summary of Initial Options Assessment

Table 13: Summary of Future Piped Water Demands

Figures

Figure 1: Study Location: Lampung Province

Figure 2: Study Area – City of Bandar Lampung

Figure 3: City of Bandar Lampung Topography

Figure 4: Average Temperature and Rainfall

Figure 5: Southern Lampung Province – Geology and Hydrogeology

Figure 6: Volcanic Eruptions and Seismic Activity

Figure 7: Bandar Lampung City Population Projection

Figure 8: Split of Domestic vs. Non-Domestic Demand

Figure 9: Estimated Historical Non-Revenue Water

Figure 10: Net Water Demand Projection

Figure 11: Demand and Willingness to Connect Surveys

Figure 12: Tariff Demand Sensitivity Model


Figure 14: Future Piped Water Demand

Figure 15: Study Area

Figure 16: Way Sekampung Flow Balance Schematic

Figure 17: Water Allocation – Key Stakeholders and Decision Makers in the Way Sekampung Basin




Figure 18: Key Technical Principals for MOU

Appendices

Appendix A

Photographs

Appendix B

Additional Study References

Appendix C

Way Sekampung Water Balance

Appendix D

Current PDAM Information

Appendix E

World Bank Feedback




Page 1

Executive Summary

Less than 35% of the population of Bandar Lampung is connected to an organised piped potable water supply system. The remaining population and industry relies heavily on groundwater extraction bores. As population densities have increased, the quality and quantity of shallow well water has deteriorated, particularly near the coast. Therefore whilst a portion of the population will continue to rely on dug wells for their principle source of water, the provision of a safe reliable piped water supply is an urgent requirement for most residents.

With regards to the existing piped water supply system, the quality and reliability of supply is very variable and most residents are forced to have alternative supply sources and are required to boil the tap water as minimum if used for drinking or cooking purposes. In addition, the piped distribution is very inefficient and up to half of the water produced at supply is lost in the network through a combination of pipe leaks (due to natural deterioration and poor construction and maintenance) and illegal tap-offs.

Therefore these factors mean that the Bandar Lampung needs a secure and consistent source of water supply to meet the growing demand and a better, more effective method of distributing the water throughout the city.

The desktop study undertaken in this assessment has looked at the current and future water demands, the current water supply sources and future water supply options and recommendations for the development of piped water supply to meet the requirements of the city. Arup notes the limitations of this study in that it was primarily a desktop exercise which relied on information from previous reports and investigations and high level consultation with relevant stakeholders. To confirm the findings of this report it is recommended that additional site investigation is conducted and that a detailed feasibility study is undertaken (refer to Section 7 for more information). The future demand for piped water has been calculated by reviewing the project population growth and their appetite for connecting to a piped network (based upon current and future tariffs). The results have indicated that with the current infrastructure in place, in 2015 there will be a deficit of approximately 955 l/s which will increase by 250% to 2,279 l/s in 2040.

Piped water supply in Bandar Lampung is the responsibility of the Bandar Lampung Water Authority (PDAM Way Rilau). The PDAM piped water system is made up of a combination of surface water supply sources such as rivers and springs, and ground water extraction bores. Currently PDAM sources around 75% of their total supply of 600 l/s from the Way Kuripan, which is one of the largest rivers running through the city. Based on the current supply, PDAM will need to find alternative sources of water for an additional demand of 355 l/s in 2015 increasing to 1,679 l/s by 2040. The selection of potential new water sources depend their size and consistency and the cost to implement the solution. This assessment has looked at the following new potential water sources:

• Surface water supply

• Ground water supply

• Recycled water




Page 2

• Desalinated water

Each of the options has advantages and disadvantages. The two principal disadvantages common to most of the options is the size of the source, ie. Most of the rivers within or close to Bandar Lampung do not have the capacity to meet the requirements (and similarly groundwater is unreliable in terms of quantity) or cost to implement (desalination is not a viable option for example). Bandar Lampung is a large city in a developing country. It does not have the water and waste water infrastructure that is common in most developed countries. The challenges of providing this infrastructure come from the ability of the local government and people to pay for it. Bandar Lampung is not unique in this regards and the problem for providing a long term, clean and secure piped water supply for the city of Bandar Lampung cannot be solved by adopting one fix-all solution (as this would be too costly), rather a series of solutions must be implemented to meet the 2040 needs. As a result of its investigation, Arup recommends that the planned Way Sekampung 500 Litre/second water supply scheme proceeds. Arup notes however that the current scheme alone will not provide sufficient supply for the entire city’s future demand requirements. The city’s overall demand in 2040 is estimated to be 3,100 Litres/second (for the base case scenario). The combined existing supply of 600 Litres/second plus the 500L/sec planned supply still leaves the city with a significant shortfall of approximately 2,000Litres/second by 2040.

1. Accordingly it is recommended that the following additional options are considered: Increase capacity of abstraction from Way Sekampung (from planned 500L/sec to up to 2,000L/sec). This expansion should be considered as a high priority that is implements as soon as it can be justified financially. The expansion requires the construction of a regulating dam in the river and increasing the size of the proposed WTP and transmission pipeline in order to convey the additional water.

2. Increase individual household rainwater management by encouraging holding tanks and private storage facilities – this could decrease the amount of piped water required by up to 30%

3. Centralised wastewater reuse. There are currently studies underway to provide centralised waste water treatment facilities. Within the next 10 years, it is likely that a treatment plant will be constructed. The opportunity shouldn’t be missed to adopt additional treatment to recharge rivers, aquifers or direct piped for domestic non-potable use. Conservatively such a scheme has the capacity to supply up to 2,000Litres/second of reusable water from 2020 onwards.

In summary, there are a number of technical options available to resolve Bandar Lampung’s shortfall in water supply. The implementation of a combination of these options will depend upon the city’s financial capacity to deliver them (either through government funding or through private finance), government regulation (with respect to implementation of the rainwater tanks) and overall wastewater infrastructure development (until this occurs option 3 won’t be practical). Arup notes that additional groundwater studies currently underway (by third parties)




Page 3

will assist in addressing the decreasing groundwater table and quality and also assess the feasibility of recharging options. These may also assist in addressing the long term water supply requirements.




Page 4

Introduction 1

1.1 Background and Problem Description

Bandar Lampung is a port city in the south of the island of Sumatra with a population of approximately 879,651 (2010) covering a total land area of 200 km2. Only about 32.21% (2010) of the population are connected to an organised piped potable water supply system. This existing piped water system, whilst having insufficient coverage to supply the entire city, also suffers from high levels of non-revenue water (NRW) water losses estimated by PDAM to be up to 60% and on average 40%.

The remaining population and industry relies heavily on groundwater extraction bores and some coastal communities have limited rainwater collection systems. As population densities have increased, shallow well water quality has deteriorated, particularly near the coast, so that whilst a portion of the population will continue to rely on dug wells for their principle source of water, the provision of a safe reliable piped water supply is an urgent requirement for most residents.

It is anticipated that the requirement for potable water will increase from 1,415 l/s m3/s in 2010 to 3,246 l/s in 2040.

1.2 Study Scope

This study has been commissioned by the World Bank to carry out a water supply and demand assessment for the city of Bandar Lampung. This assessment involves identifying and studying current and future demand projections and water supply sources taking into the capability to meet current or future additional demand, sustainability of supply, competing uses, relevant regulation and availability of obtaining abstraction permits and likely costs of implementing the proposed strategy.

In order to carry out this study, Arup have undertaken reviews and desktop assessments of previous studies and background information, site visits of the study area and existing assets, and stakeholder consultation and engagement. The purpose of these assessments will be to develop a recommended strategy/framework for the development of the water supply to the city of Bandar Lampung. This strategy will identify some of the key technical principles for the development of a memorandum of understanding between the key water stakeholders, regarding water allocation and supply to meet the city’s future water demands.

1.3 Previous Studies

• Arup has undertaken a desktop review of various publicly available or specified studies related to the assessment of water demand for Bandar Lampung within the PDAM mandate, including domestic, industrial and commercial demands.

• The relevant studies that have been reviewed are as follows:




Page 5

1.3.1 Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund (IIGF),

“Demand on PDAM water supply in Bandar Lampung”,

MARS Qualitative Consultant, November 2011

The most recent study conducted by Mars found that majority of the Bandar Lampung residents use more than one source of water for different activities, and the current piped water supply from PDAM is insufficient for household needs. The survey shows that 78% of survey respondents are willing to connect to piped water after PDAM’s promotion. The willingness to connect (WTC) found in this survey is significantly higher than that in the previous study by BPPSPAM. To avoid the risk of underestimate of future demand, this report will use the 78% WTC for future water demand projection.

1.3.2 BPPSPAM, “Real Demand Survey and Water Demand

Study”, 2010

The 2010 qualitative study shows the willingness to connect piped water supply from PDAM is low among Bandar Lampung residents. Only 24.1% of the respondents indicated that they are interested in pipe water connection. The study projected a daily water demand up to year 2035, of 1,513, 1,825 and 2,281 litre/sec for low, base and high demand scenario, respectively, accounting for both domestic and non-domestic water demand. These are considered high estimates.

1.3.3 Australian Development Assistance Bureau and DG

Cipta Karya, Ministry of Public Works (MPW) ,”

Bandar Lampung Water Supply Project - Master Plan

And Feasibility Report”, Vol.1, Sinclair Knight and

Partners, June 1986

This project headed by Sinclair Knight & partners in 1985 sought to understand the feasibility of different water supply options for the city of Bandar Lampung. New raw water sources were considered and compared. The following schemes were recommended in the masterplan (with most recommended listed first):

• Way Kuripan run-of-river scheme, the Northern springs and the Satellite schemes.

• Way Sabu run-of-river scheme

• Kuripan Dam

• Simpang Kiri Dam

The master plan also highlighted three other sources of water: Cooling water from Telukbetung power station, water treatment plant backwash water and unaccounted for Water.

1.3.4 DG Cipta Karya Ministry of Public Works and Asian

Development Bank (ADB), “Study of Water Supply and




Page 6

Sewage Disposal in Bandar Lampung”, Final Report

Vol. 1, GKW consultant, May 1994.

The study did a population projection, a raw water demand projection, and a study on potential raw water sources for the city of Bandar Lampung. It estimated that the city’s population would rise to 1,300,451 by 2015, with a demand of 3,037l/sec. The three potential water sources studied were:

• Way Kuripan

• Way Sabu

• Way Sekampung The consultant predicted that way Sekampung would be needed in any case, and recommended that Way Kuripan be developed to the maximum extent possible (through the construction of a 43m high Dam)

1.3.5 Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure,

“Optimal Development of Water Infrastructure for

Regional Development in Way Sekampung and Way

Seputih Basins”, Vol 4, Supporting Report, 4.2

Municipal and Industrial Water Supply, Nippon Koei

Co, March 2003

This Study has been carried out as part of a master plan for the optimal development of water resources for the city of Bandar Lampung. It also studies the infrastructure development in Way Sekampung and Way Seputih basins, discussing the planning and framework for this region’s development. The paper focused on identifying growth centres in the basins area, alternative water resources available, identification of factors determining the demand, the M&I water demand of the growth centres and also identified intakes conveyance and water treatment facilities. A tentative phase of the development was also drawn up.

1.3.6 Additional Studies

Other studies that have been reviewed are as follows:

• Ministry of Human Settlement and Infrastructure, Bandar Lampung Water Supply Concession Pre-feasibility Study, March 2001. GHD.

• Australia Indonesia Partnership – Wastewater Investment Master Plan, September 2011

• Australian Development Assistance Bureau, Bandar Lampung Water Supply Project Study, Crash Programme, October 2015

• Pekerjaan: FS Regulating Dam di Sungai Way Sekampung, May 2012, Widya Graha Asana




Page 7

• Way Seputih, Way Sekampung Irrigation Project – Study on Optimal Development of Water Infrastructure for Regional Development in Way Sekampung and Way Seputih Basis, March 2002, Nippon Koei Co

• Republik Indonesia, Departemen Permukiman Dan Prasarana Wilayay, Proyek, Pembangunan Waduk Batutegi, November 2003, Nippon Koei Co, Ltd.

• Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Public Work, Bandar Lampung Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Program, Draft Supplementary Feasibility Study Report, Volume III, Water Supply, December 1989, C. Lotti and Associati

• Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, Direktorate Jenderal Sumber Daya Air (SDA), Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Mesuji Sekampung, Rancangan Pola Pengelolaan, Wilayah Sungai Mesji Sekampung

• Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), Executive Summary, Bandar Lampung City Resilience Strategy to Climate Change 2011 and 2030

1.4 Site inspections

Site inspections were conducted by Arup’s technical engineers and its local engineers in order to gain more insight into current and future water extraction asset capabilities and current land use and development as part of this study. These site visits took place during the month of November 2012 and included:

i. inspecting critical areas of current water extraction facilities including Way Kuripan and Way Sabu,

ii. water control structures such as Batutegi Dam and Argoguruh Weir and

iii. ground water springs at Batu Putih.

During these visits, basic water quality samples were taken. The results of these water quality samples and inspections are incorporated into the report, together with appropriate photographs (refer Appendix A) and data. Note that these samples are spot samples only and a more detailed sampling program should be undertaken if World Bank would like to confirm the quality of water and therefore treatment required. More detailed sampling has been undertaken for this purpose for the Way Sekampung River and this has been provided to World Bank in a separate study.




Page 8

1.5 Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation with the relevant authorities and stakeholders has been an integral part of the assessment of options and selection of the preferred solution for this water supply and demand assessment. Consultation has been undertaken with a number of the key stakeholders including:

- PDAM Way Rilau: the local water authority for the city of Bandar Lampung, Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM) Way Rilau,

- MGBL: various departments of the Municipal Government of Bandar Lampung (MGBL) and

- Belai Besar Wilayah Sungai Mesuji-Sekampung: the irrigation authority

- Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund

- World Bank’s Technical Team (in particular Fook Chuan Feng and Andri Wibisono)

These consultations have included holding workshops during the course of the study to discuss key issues such as existing infrastructure assessment and performance, water supply allocation and management and mechanisms for authority approval and understanding of government regulations and hierarchy. During these workshops Arup also gave a detailed presentation of its scope and the purpose of the study.




Page 9

Description of Study Area 2

2.1 Study Location

This study is focused on providing a water supply and demand assessment for the city of Bandar Lampung in the south of the island of Sumatra (Fig.1 and Fig.2). Originally a combination of two cities; Tanjung Karang and Teluk Betung Betung, Bandar Lampung city is administratively divided into 13 districts and 98 villages covering an approximate area of 200km2.

The built up areas are concentrated in the centre of the city along a north south corridor. The bay in the south and the mountains on either side provide a natural boundary. North of the ridge urban development is spreading in all directions. This provides significant challenges to the planning of municipal infrastructure. A lot of the open, undeveloped land on either side of the built up area is envisaged as remaining light density, which means most of the population growth will occur north of the dividing ridge.

Figure 1: Study Location: Lampung Province

City of Bandar Lampung




Page 10

Figure 2: Study Area – City of Bandar Lampung

2.2 Topography and Climate

The topography and climate of Bandar Lampung city is characterised by hilly terrain. It bordered on the west by mountains (rising to over 500 metres above mean sea level MSL) and high lands and by lowlands to the east. Through Bandar Lampung Province run major rivers such as Mesuji, Tulang Bawang, Sekampung (in the south) and Seputih. There is a ridge forming a watershed divide to the north of the Sungai Way Kuala (Fig.3).

This divide creates two different drainage scenarios – all water south of the divide, which includes much of the city, will drain through rivers generally flowing from the mountain sides towards the bay. These rivers are small streams and no large river discharges into the bay. The largest stream, Way Ratai, drains to the bay from the west side and Way Sabu and Way Kuripan from the northwest. All water north of the divide will eventually flow into the adjacent Way Sekampung catchment.

BL City Area




Page 11

Figure 3: City of Bandar Lampung Topography

Bandar Lampung city is located close to the equator and has a monsoon tropical climate with a distinct wet and dry season. The mean monthly temperatures range between 25oC in July and 28oc in May. Average humidity is high throughout the year and varies between 78% and 90%. The dry season (<200mm of rain per month) lasts from April to November. Annual rainfall varies year to year from 700mm to over 3000mm with a monthly maximum during the wet season (Fig.4). Drought conditions do exist on an average once in 5 years. It is important to understand these rainfall conditions because they have a significant impact on the available supply of water in the dry season.

Figure 4: Average Temperature and Rainfall

Dividing ridge




Page 12

2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology

2.4.1 Geology

Tectonically, the island of Sumatra lies along a major subduction zone and island arc system. Here, along the west coast of Sumatra and the south coast of Java, the Indian-Australian Plate is subducting under the south-western margin of the Eurasian Plate. The Sunda magmatic arc, which extends along the length of these islands, has given rise to extensive volcanic activity, and mineral emplacement, for the past quarter billion years from Permian times up to the present.

The geology of Bandar Lampung city is predominantly made up of young volcanic products consisting of andesitic and basaltic lavas, tuff and breccia. A geological map is shown in Figure 5.

2.4.2 Hydrogeology

Both shallow wells and bores are widely used as existing water source to supply the city. However, it can be seen from the hydrogeology map, that from west to centre part of the city, the depth to water table varies in wide range and aquifers are of largely varying transmissivity, whereas in the east part, the groundwater has not been found exploitable. The wells yield in most of the aquifers located in the

west is generally less than 5 l/s. However, the western parts of the city – Kemiling and Telukbetung Barat Kecamatans are regarded as aquifer recharge zone of the city.

The areas to the east are more affected by saline intrusions due to both natural occurrences and high extraction rates which are not surprising given that piped supply in these sectors is limited and there are existing high-water using industries.

Bandar Lampung has significant groundwater reserves that can be used as clean water source. A study on Groundwater Potential conducted by the Lampung University (UNILA) in 2002 observes that the city has a groundwater reserve of around 41.90 million m3/year.

However, recent studies have shown that the quantity and quality of the city’s groundwater are deteriorating due to on-going stresses caused by climate change, high water demand, and expanding area of impermeable surface. A vulnerability assessment has concluded that poor levels of groundwater quality can be identified in several communities’ drilled wells. The limited service coverage of the PDAM has forced over-exploitation of groundwater, especially around the settlement area with high population density. The impact of this stress is particularly prevalent in the dry season.

2.4.3 Seismology

The southern side of the island of Sumatra, including Lampung province, is in a highly active tectonic zone. Volcanic eruptions and seismic activity occur geologically frequently in the region. In general, areas within 1 kilometre of the coast are susceptible to earthquakes of Richter magnitude 7 or greater. Refer to Fig 6 which shows the proximity of activity to the study area.




Page 13

Figure 5: Southern Lampung Province – Geology and Hydrogeology




Page 14

Figure 6: Volcanic Eruptions and Seismic Activity

2.5 Water Resources

The sources of water in the city and surrounds are rainfall, runoff in streams and rivers, groundwater and seawater. There are over a dozen streams in Bandar Lampung city which are split by the dividing ridge into two areas:

• Those rivers north of the ridge which drain into the Way Sekampung catchment area

• Those rivers south of the ridge which originate and drain from the city into the sea. Of these rivers, the two largest are Way Kuripan and Way Kuala.

Outside the city, there are two major rivers that flank Bandar Lampung:

• Way Sekampung – located approximately 25km to the north of the city, this major river flows from west to east and contains various flow regulating and control structures such as Argoguruh Weir and Batutegi Dam.

• Way Sabu – located approximately 10 km to south-west, this river flows north to south.

There are also various natural springs within the region to the north-west of the city.

The water sources are managed for the purposes of irrigation, municipal water supply, and industrial water supply.

A map of the location of the principal water resources discussed in this study is provided in Figure 14 in section 5 of this report.




Page 15

2.6 Social-Economic

2.6.1 Poverty

Around 65% of the province of Lampung’s population, or 4.8 million people, currently live below the poverty line. This is in contrast with a 50% poverty rate for residents of Bandar Lampung. The unemployment rate in 2009 stood at 13.4%. According to the Public Policy and Strategic Study Centre, the poverty rate is expected to climb as factors causing poverty to climb continue to go unchecked.

‘Near poor’ households are vulnerable to shocks such as food price increases and ill health, which can easily drive them into poverty. Despite recent improvements in education and health sectors, public services and health standards still lag behind other middle-income countries. High rates of child malnutrition and maternal mortality, and inadequate access to education, safe water and sanitation are persistent problems among poor communities.

2.6.2 Income vs. expenditure

Due to the low income levels that many in poverty experience, people are forced to spend the bulk of their income on basic needs such as food, water and energy. Due to the increasing stresses on resources, increased costs have forced many to go without basic necessities such as safe and secure water for consumption purposes.

2.6.3 Main industry

Being blessed with incredibly fertile soil, agriculture has naturally become the main industry of the province. Clove, coffee and coconut plantations are abundant along the southern coast while pepper, coffee, cassava, cocoa and rice are preferred in the eastern sections of the region. The area around Lake Ranu is primarily a tobacco growing area.

2.6.4 Main income

Trade is the main livelihood of the city population. Distribution of gross regional domestic product (PDRB) of Bandar Lampung City include: transport and communications (19.6%), processing industry (17.6%), services (16.9%), commerce, hotels and restaurants (16.6 %), while agriculture contributes just 5% of PDRB.

2.6.5 Social support

In 2008, the central government allocated almost Rp 120 billion from the Mandiri Community Empowerment National Program (PNPM) as part of a stimulus package to reduce poverty and unemployment rates in 942 villages, 68 districts and nine regencies in Lampung.




Page 16

In 2009, PNPM Mandiri has increased its funding to Rp 220 billion and will allocate 116 fund management units (UPK) to nine regencies, each of which will receive between Rp 300 million and Rp 2 billion.

In 2008, the central government distributed direct cash handouts to 785,000 underprivileged families, each receiving Rp 700,000 annually, or approximately Rp 550 billion in total.

It was announced in 2010 that poorer residents of Lampung province not covered by health insurance will be given free insurance by the government. The free insurance will be provided to those who are not currently covered by government social security scheme Jamsostek by their employers, and residents who do not qualify for insurance schemes for the poor.




Page 17

Existing Water Supply in Bandar Lampung 3

3.1 Existing Water Supply Sources

Water in Bandar Lampung is supplied through a variety of sources including a piped water supply, limited rainfall catchment schemes and private ground water extraction bores.

3.1.1 Current PDAM Water Supply Sources

Piped water supply in Bandar Lampung is the responsibility of the Bandar Lampung Water Authority (PDAM Way Rilau) which was established 35 years ago. The PDAM piped water system is made up of a combination of surface water supply sources such as rivers and springs, and ground water extraction bores.

PDAM sources around 75% of their total pipe supply of 600 l/s from the Way Kuripan, which is one of the larger rivers running through Bandar Lampung (refer Figure 14 in section 5 for a map). The remaining supply of 150 l/s is sourced from three groups of springs (Way Linti, Tanjung Aman and Batu Putih) and ground water boreholes. The schematic of the existing Water Supply System of PDAM can be seen in Figure 7. There are eight water storage reservoirs supplying the distribution system in Bandar Lampung with capacities which vary from 500 to 5,000m3.

The existing piped water system has limited coverage and currently only supplies around 32% of the population. The quality of water coming out of the taps in Bandar Lampung is very variable and most residents are forced to boil the water as a minimum if used for drinking or cooking purposes. The existing distribution system (Fig. 8) has very high levels of non-revenue water (NRW) which is water that is supplied but not actually reaching the residents. Further description of NRW in the current system is discussed in section 4.2.3 of this report.

The quality of water in the piped water supply systems is monitored by PDAM who sample the raw water entering the treatments plants as well as the treated water in storage reservoirs. However the quality is inconsistently maintained and there are many households that still rely on bottled water for drinking and cooking. Piped water supplied by PDAM is boiled by many households before use for consumption.

Table 1: Current PDAM Water Supply System

Source Type Flow (l/s)

Way Kuripan Surface 450

Way Linti Spring 40

Way Gudang Spring 8

Way Egaharap Spring 5

Batu Putih Spring 68

Tanjung Aman I Spring 30

Tanjung Aman II Spring 5

Total 606

The supply of water in Bandar Lampung is very limited by the availability of raw water sources. The development of any significant additional water supply infrastructure will require substantial new investment.




Page 18

Figure 7: Current PDAM Water Supply System

Source: PDAM Report 2010

Figure 8: Existing PDAM piped water network in BL city




Page 19

3.1.2 Other Current Water Supply Sources

With only 32% of the population catered for by PDAM, the remaining 68% of water users are assumed to obtain their water supplies from the following:

• Shallow wells, private and public. The groundwater table is generally high, particularly during the wet season, and shallow wells are used throughout the city. The high use of shallow wells, especially in the northern parts of the city, means that salt-water intrusion is understood to be an increasing problem. Similarly the quality of the water in the wells is also variable and has resulted in health issues. Various studies have indicated the following impacts on the quality of groundwater:

o Land limitation causes the distance between public latrines and water sources to be too short, the well structures are usually not waterproof which compounds the problem, causing wastewater diffusion to occur. E-coli contaminated water also shows that the water is contaminated by human waste and a possibility of pathogenic bacteria in the form of virus, protozoa, or worms can exist. Among the diseases caused by unclean water consumption are typhoid, dysentery, cholera, diarrhoea, etc. (Australian Government Report, 2011)

o Area between Ketapang and Kuala Penet along the east coast is said to be affected by saline ground water up to 2.5 km inland. The wells in at least 18 villages had good water, but are now brackish or even saline (BAPPEDA, 1998)

o Groundwater in the many areas was found to be too saline to drink, suitable only for washing (Giesen, 1991)

o Many rice paddies and former freshwater swamps have been converted into shrimp farms or built-up areas, which as a result has greatly reduced the area for groundwater recharge from surface water and precipitation (Zieren et al, 1999)

Currently there are various studies within the region looking at options for recharging the ground water aquifers through different mechanisms such as biopores.

• Springs, serving small communities and public taps, with unreliable security of supply during the dry season;

• Surface water, easily accessible to the population, but of hazardous quality for public health;

• Drilled boreholes, utilized by public institutions, major industrial consumers and some private consumers;

• Vendors, collection and distribution of water from various sources.

The MARS survey found the following distribution of current water supply sources within their sample base:

Table 2: MARS Survey – Potable Water Sources

Source % use of population surveyed




Page 20

Total PDAM Customer Non-PDAM

Customer

PDAM 24 100 0

Deep well – semi jet pump 12 5 14

Deep well – jet pump 21 11 24

Shallow well – manual & semi jet

pump 25 17 28

Shallow well – manual & jet pump 9 6 10

Shallow well – manual 16 14 17

Communal well 9 5 10

Branded gallon 51 56 50

Refill gallon 23 12 27

3.2 National Regulations

In general, water use priority is regulated under Law No. 7 of 004 on Water Resource (“Law No. 7/2004”) and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2008 on Management of Water Resource (“GR No. 42/2008”). It states that the priority of water provision is to fulfil daily needs and to provide irrigation for society agricultural needs in the existing irrigation system. The terms daily needs in the regulations shall include providing drinking water. Therefore, in general the priority of water use shall be for daily purpose (including drinking water) and society agriculture purpose (irrigation). .

Based on this information, it is unclear whether the supply of water for drinking or irrigation takes precedence. This lack of clarity is a key issue that needs to be resolved with respect to the extraction of water from Way Sekampung for Bandar Lampung

Specifically, Law No. 7/2004 and GR No. 42/2008 regulates that determination of priority hierarchy of water resource provision on any river area shall be conducted by Minister, Governor, or Regent/Mayor depends on his authority and responsibility. In this regard, the Minister, Governor, or Regent/Mayor shall coordinate with the coordination board of water resource management in the relevant river.

Based on Law No. 7/2004, Government, Provincial Government, and Regency / City Government has the authority to determine and provide license regarding provision, function and utilization of water. GR No. 42/2008 stipulates that utilization of water resource for surface water resource obliges to obtain license from Regent/Mayor for the river area in one Regency/City; Governor for river area across Regencies/Cities; or Minister for river area across provinces, countries and national strategic river.

Based on such provision, the main license needed in order to engage activity of water extraction shall be the water extraction license (“Surat Izin Pengambilan Air/SIPA”). Based on our latest confirmation from BPPSPAM official and Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Jakarta (Ciliwung Cisadane River), usually, the recommendation from the relevant Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai takes about 2 (two) weeks and the issuance of SIPA from the Ministry of Public Works also takes about 2 (two) weeks. However, it will depend on the examination from the relevant Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai and the Ministry of Public Works.




Page 21

An extraction licence to extract 500 l/s has been granted for Way Sekampung. This licence is included in Appendix B.

According to GR 42/2008, SIPA may be issued for period of 10 (ten) years. However, in practice, the SIPA is granted for period of 3 (three) to 5 (five) years and could be extended.

Groundwater rights are controlled by the Ministry of Mines and Energy through the D.G. of Geology and Mineral Resources. Generally a license to abstract groundwater is issued by the Provincial Governor following a technical recommendation issued by the DGGMR through the regional office.

Unfortunately it is our understanding the majority of people who extract

groundwater do not apply for licenses. This and the fact that it is very difficult

to police illegal extraction is leading to the deterioration of the groundwater

table and therefore the long term sustainability of this source of supply (due to

quantity, quality and salt water intrusion).




Page 22

Demand Projections 4

4.1 Population

4.1.1 Historical and Current Population Estimates

Approximately 12% of the total Lampung Province population resides in Bandar Lampung city. The population of Bandar Lampung has increased rapidly, over the last few years, due to the high growth rate of the economy. According to data obtained from the Statistical Bureau (BPS) of Bandar Lampung City, population growth between 2001 and 2010 is as follows in Table 2.

Table 3: Past Population Growth

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Pop. 745,892 767,036 790,895 800,490 809,860 844,608 812,133 822,880 833,517 881,801

Source: Water Demand Study for Water Supply of Bandar Lampung, Public-Private Partnership Project

4.1.2 Growth Projections

Various past studies have calculated different projections for future population growth. The more recent reports tend towards more conservative growth estimations which are based upon past population trends and statistical data. In the PPP-PDAM “Way Rilau” Bandar Lampung City Water Demand Study, undertaken in 2011, three population projections were calculated from 2010 until 2030.

These projections are based upon past population trends and using Geometric and Arithmetic projections and in consultation with PDAM. The results of these have been included in Table 3 and Figure 7. An additional growth projection, based upon the UN’s average annual urban population growth figure of 1.7% for Indonesia between 2010 and 2015, has also been included as a reference.

For the purposes of estimating the future water demand for Bandar Lampung city, this study has adopting the conservative PDAM growth trend.

Table 4: Bandar Lampung City Population Projection

Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Arithmetic 879,651 969,245 1,058,839 1,148,433 1,238,027 1,327,621 1,417,215

Geometric 879,651 979,793 1,091,335 1,215,576 1,353,961 1,459,384 1,586,552

PDAM* 879,651 947,634 1,020,871 1,099,768 1,184,762 1,255,244 1,335,389

City’s

Spatial Plan - 1,030,486 1,231,247 1,440,350 1,866,379 1,340,708 1,458,609

United

Nations 879,651 957,007 1,041,166 1,132,726 1,232,337 1,327,621 1,417,215

* Adopted as the population projection for this study




Page 23

Figure 7: Bandar Lampung City Population Projection

4.2 Water Demand Projections

4.2.1 Per Capita Consumption

Using relevant data to hand, the following metrics for per capita consumption have been developed accordingly. According to PDAM’s consumption records from December 2010, annual monthly consumption for each connection was 18m3. The average per capita consumption during 2010 was 139 litres/capita/day (l/c/d), however this is spread across a wide range of 75 to 163 l/c/d. As is normal within most rapidly developing cities, the per capita consumption will increase as the city’s size and density increase as well. The increase can be attributed to many factors such as increased industrialisation. Whilst the actual domestic use will not increase significantly, the increased industrial use will increase the overall demand if measured as per capita (which is the measurement used in this assessment).

Table 5: Per Capita Water Demand Scenarios

Note: It has been assumed for the purposes of this report that industrial use is included in these per capita scenarios.

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Po

pu

lati

on

Year

Population Projection

Arithmetic

Geometric

PDAM

WB's projection

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Low scenario (l/c/d) 139 140 150 160 170 180 190

Base scenario (l/c/d) 139 150 160 170 180 190 200

High scenario (l/c/d) 139 150 160 170 190 200 210




Page 24

4.2.2 Water Usage

The use of water for domestic vs. non-domestic purposes varies across the city according to the location of industry. According to figures provided by PDAM, the portion of water used for non-domestic purposes was less than 15% in 2010. This figure is still below the 20% contained with the guidelines provided by the Directorate General of Cipta Karya. Depending upon the increase of economic activity planned for the city and the increased diversity of industry of Bandar Lampung, it is predicted that the water use for non-domestic purposes will increase to 25% by 2040. The use of non-domestic water can be split across the following categories:

i. Commercial Demand

ii. Institutional Demand

iii. Social Demand

iv. Industrial Demand

v. Special User Demand (large facilities such as airports, port, etc)

(As discussed in section 4.2.1 – the increased industrial use will increase the water demand when measured as per capita).

Figure 8: Split of Domestic vs. Non-Domestic Demand

Source: Calculation from PDAM Report 2010

4.2.3 Non-Revenue Water

The current pipe water supply system suffers from very high losses of Non-Revenue Water (NRW). NRW is water that is lost throughout the system, for both technical and non-technical reasons, between the outlets at the treatment plants and/or reservoirs and the taps at the registered connections. Accurate data on actual NRW is difficult to obtain due to the absence of adequate records and ineffective measurement devices, however the latest data available from PDAM show an increase from 34.8% in 2004 to 52% in 2009 as shown in Table 5. This information is consistent with data obtained for other Indonesian cities – eg. A Water in Asian Cities Report (ADB 2004) indicated 51% of NRW in Jakarta and Thaidens (1996) showed 43% of NRW in Bangdung. An assessment by the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF 1998) showed an NRW for Selangor of 40%




Page 25

Table 6: Estimated Historical Average Non-Revenue Water

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NRW (%) 34.8 40.7 41.8 48.5 50.2 52.0


Amongst the known causes of NRW are the following:

• Unmetered water due to bad maintenance of the meters;

• Inaccurate meter readings due to discontinuous service;

• Illegal connections in the transmission lines as well as in the distribution and reticulation pipes;

• Leakages in networks due to poor construction and maintenance;

• Pipe age and corrosion level; and

• Soil characteristics, soil movement, and traffic loading.

Figure 9: Estimated Historical Non-Revenue Water


Future NRW is more difficult to predict. Two factors will need to be addressed. The first factor is the amount of NRW in the current system and the second factor is the amount of NRW in any new, proposed system.

• NRW in current piped network: PDAM is currently considering plans to undertake a full study and rehabilitation program of the existing network to reduce the long term NRW losses in the system. No details are available for the targeted reductions but for the purposes of this study it has been conservatively assumed that they will reduce NRW to approximately 35%. This reduction is consistent with various case studies around the world. The actual percentage reduction will depend upon the detailed assessment of the existing condition of the pipe network, level of investment and future actions of PDAM.

• NRW in future piped network: Any future networks constructed for PDAM piped networks will need to be designed and constructed to achieve a NRW of 5% (the American Water Works Association leak




Page 26

detection and accountability committee recommended 10% as a benchmark in 1996) increasing to around 20% as normal wear and sets in tear (a 15% increase over 25 years will be very challenging to maintain and will require regular investments in maintenance and replacement by PDAM to achieve).

Table 7: Future NRW Projections

Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Current Network (%) 52.0 48.6 45.2 41.8 38.4 35.0

Any Future Network (%) 5.0 8.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 20.0

Total (%) 28.5 28.3 28.6 28.4 28.2 27.5

Note: It is important to note that the figures on NRW reduction for the existing network and proposed NRW on the new network are estimations only. The PPP2 project company, who will be managing the new network, will have their own estimations on the NRW as part of their O&M targets.

The decrease in the existing network NRW is due to two main factors:

1. An O&M contractor will be engaged by PDAM to operate and maintain both the existing and the new network. Their contract will define requirements to systematically reduce NRW in the existing system (through replacement of certain sections of the network, a focussed approach to removing illegal connections, more effective monitoring of the system to understand where leaks are through the introduction of district metering zones and reduced response times to leaks/pipe bursts.

2. A significant proportion of the existing network will be replaced by the new network.

The relatively low figure of 20% NRW for the new system is a conservative target based on the requirements of PPP2. PPP2 be required to monitor, maintain and ensure low NRW is achieved in order for them to meet their contractual obligations. The overall PPP project will not work if high NRW occurs because PDAM requires a certain amount of revenue from its customers in order to be able to pay the PPP1 consortium for supply of water. For this reason the contract for PPP2 will set targets for NRW in the system which must be met.

Notwithstanding the above assumptions, if the NRW is actually worse than assumed, this simply reinforces the need for a piped water supply as there will be a greater flow required to meet the demand.

4.2.4 Water Demand Projections

Based on the assumptions of population projections, demand scenarios, water demand usages and historical values of non-revenue water, the following values of water demand projection in Table 7 have calculated for the water demand projection up to 2040 for the city of Bandar Lampung.

Table 8: Average Water Demand Projections

Average Water Year




Page 27

Demand (l/s)

Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Population 879,651 947,634 1,020,871 1,099,768 1,184,762 1,255,244 1,335,389

Consumpt

ion

Rates*(L/

C/D)

Low 139 140 150 160 170 180 190

Base 139 150 160 170 180 190 200

High 139 150 160 170 190 200 210

Total (Low) l/s 1,415 1,536 1,772 2,037 2,331 2,615 2,937

Total (Base) l/s 1,415 1,645 1,891 2,164 2,468 2,760 3,091

Total (High) l/s 1,415 1,645 1,891 2,164 2,605 2,906 3,246

*Takes into account the split between domestic vs. non-domestic

Note: this is an assessment of the total water demand in the city and should not be confused with the total piped water demand supplied by PDAM. This is discussed in detail in section 4.5.

Figure 10: Net Water Demand Projection

4.3 Willingness to connect

Various surveys have been undertaken to determine the willingness of the population to connect to a piped water supply. Currently, only 32% of the population of the city have access to piped water supply. Whilst most residents would like to have a piped water supply, less people are willing to pay for: (a) a connection fee and (b) a monthly fee for a water supply. This is based principally on affordability. However in general the perception of PDAM’s ability to deliver

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

To

tal

Wa

ter

De

ma

nd

l/s

Year

Net Water Demand Projection

Total (Low)

Total (Base)

Total (High)




Page 28

is not positive (this is based on previous experience with water supply schemes implemented by PDAM in the city). Amongst the problems that are perceived by the population are the following:

• Delivering bad service to customers, particularly discontinuity and inconsistency of water flow;

• poor water quality; and

• low water pressure.

There is also a lack of willingness to pay for a new connection fee if customers already have an existing water supply (although the majority of people in Bandar Lampung would like to have more than one option of water supply to ensure security of supply). On this basis, various surveys have been undertaken to determine the feasibility of providing a piped water supply through the eyes of the community. The two most recent surveys and their results are discussed in this section.

4.3.1 Surveys

The two most recent surveys were undertaken during 2011. The first was undertaken by PT Taram in March 2011. This survey targeted a cross-section of the broad population. Due to various reasons, the quality and results (which indicated a willingness-to-connect of 24%) of this survey were questionable.

Therefore a second survey, using a more tailor-made methodology and professional staff at site, was undertaken by Mars Indonesia between July and October. This survey was conducted using qualitative methods (FGD) and quantitative methods (RDS). The results of this survey indicated a willingness to connect of 74.6%, which is very high and reflects the bad condition of water supply in Bandar Lampung

Figure 11: Demand and Willingness to Connect Surveys

4.3.2 MARS Willingness-to-Connect Survey

The MARS survey undertook the following:

• Willingness to Connect assessment: based on number of people who are willing to connect to a piped water supply water (but not taking the cost into account)

• Cost assessment: a survey of how much people will pay to have a piped water supply.




Page 29

The results of the Mars Survey indicated that 74.6% of potential customers are willing to connect (without taking cost into account).

The detailed results of the survey indicate the following:

• The majority of potential customers use more than one source of water for many activities. They use many source of water because cannot depend on one source only.

• The current supply from PDAM is considered not sufficient for household needs.

• The willingness to connect to PDAM is high, both amongst for domestic and commercial needs.

• 74.6% of potential customers are willing to connect to PDAM because the majority believe that the proposed PDAM water supply will satisfy the water demand requirements.

• The willingness to connect is not subject to demographic profiles, types of living area, or existing PDAM pipes in the area.

• “Continuity of water flow” is the most important criteria that has to be maintained PDAM. “Clean and healthy” and “affordable price” come next.

It is important to note that the results of the two MARS assessments were not correlated together as part of the MARS survey. Therefore a demand sensitivity assessment of what percentage of people is willing to pay a particular fee - for a new connection and piped water supply - has not been determined. This demand sensitivity assessment is crucial to understand the feasibility of providing a new water supply because the tariff charged to supply the new water scheme will determine how many people will actually connect (a demand sensitivity assessment has been undertaken as part of this study and is discussed in further detail in section 4.3.3 of this report). The results of the demand sensitivity assessment will determine the Willingness-to-Pay.

Note: It is not within Arup’s scope to comment on the accuracy or suitability of the surveys conducted. Accordingly for the purposes of this report it has been assumed that the survey results are reasonable and the results have been used in the model developed in Section 4.4.

4.4 Tariff Demand Sensitivity Model

As discussed above, the MARS survey reviewed the Willingness-to-Connect based upon current and future requirements. As part of the survey, MARS also asked the question of how much people are willing to pay for a connection. Whilst this surveyed approach is necessary to understand the overall potential for connectivity, a demand sensitivity assessment of the basic tariff, based upon the MARS survey results, should also be undertaken. The demand sensitivity should focus on the willingness-to-pay for: (a) piped water tariffs and (b) a new connection.




Page 30

4.4.1 Willingness-to-pay for piped water tariffs

The purpose of this demand sensitivity assessment is to determine how the willingness-to-pay (WTP) decreases as the cost of tariff fees increases. Based on the collation of hundreds of prices globally, the elasticity range of tariff vs. WTP is around -0.35 to -0.6. What this means is that for every 1% rise in tariff, the demand will drop by -0.35% to -0.6%. For a 10% rise in tariff, demand drops by 3.5% to 6%.

In order to establish the relationship between WTP based on the tariff to pay, it is necessary to rank the Mars survey results. Arup reviewed the raw data and conducted a ranking that indicated the following:

• 100% of people are willing to pay for the cheapest connection

• 0.2% of people are willing to pay for the most expensive connection


By using this ranking, and correlating all the intermediate data, the linear relationship between the percentages of people willing to pay against the tariff range can be determined. Figure 12 demonstrates this relationship – 100% on the x-axis is the cheapest tariff and 100% (RP 30,000/month) of people are willing to pay this tariff to have piped water. 667% (RP 200,000/month) on the x-axis is the most expensive tariff and only 0.2% of people are willing to pay this tariff.

The results of the tariff demand assessment are as follows

• For directly drinkable water, the WTP from the survey results ranges between RP 30,000 and RP 1,500,000 per month. According to PDAM’s current water tariff structure, this is equal of willing to pay a m3of water at RP 3,971, based on 18 m3/household average water consumption in Bandar Lampung (PDAM, 2010).

100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%

Highest tariff that

respondents are

willing to pay,

RP200, 000 /month

Percentage uplift on cheapest tariff

Lowest tariff that respondents are willing to pay, RP30, 000 /month




Page 31

• It is possible to determine what percentage of the population are willing to pay to have a piped water supply if the current PDAM tariff of RP 3,971/m3 is adopted – in this case the number is 76.1%.

• If the tariff is increased to RP 6,000 /m3, which is the proposed PPP tariff, then the willingness to pay will decrease to 50.7%.

• 620 households responded to Mars’s survey on the questions of Willingness to Pay (WTP) for piped water supply. It should be noted that most of the respondents came from Zone 185, which could render the sample less representative of the entire population.

• In order to develop a tariff demand sensitivity model that is representative of average household, the highest 10% WTP is excluded from the data set when evaluating the impact of increase in price on piped water demand.

• The water price elasticity was found to be -0.2 (Fig. 12). It means that for every 1% rise in tariff, demand will drop by -0.2%. Literature on Meta water price elasticity suggests a common range of -0.35% to 0.6%. The low water price elasticity illustrates relatively strong demand of PDAM’s water from the residents.

• The tariff and demand sensitivity model suggests a 76.1% WTP for drinkable piped water based on the current PDAM tariff. However, the current service only covers approximately 32% of the population, indicating that there is a larger demand of PDAM’s piped water.

Further information on the tariff demand sensitivity assessment can be found in Appendix D.

4.4.2 Willingness-to-pay for new piped water connection

As part of the MARS survey, the survey participants were asked to indicate what price they were willing to pay for a new piped water connection (switching cost). The results of this question have been included in Figure 13 below. They are indicated as how much of the percentage of population are willing to pay for an increasing price of new piped water connections. As the cost increases, the willingness to pay decreases. The actual proposed connection cost in PPP1 is RP750,000. Based on the results indicated in Fig. 13, at this connection cost, over 95% of those surveyed are willing to pay this. Therefore the overall willingness to pay is not restricted by the cost to connect but by the cost of the tariff.




Page 32


Note: Neither the willingness-to-pay for a piped water supply or a new water connection analysis has been undertaken for industry. Our analysis uses the domestic customer tariffs as the basis to calculate the willingness to pay. This is a conservative approach as normally industrial users are willing to more for water supply than domestic customers (due to a number of factors such as security and quality of supply, etc). Currently PDAM has different tariffs for different types of users and industrial users are charged the most per m3 of supply. In fact some industrial customers pay greater than 7,000 Rp/m3 for their water supply (refer to Appendix D which contains current PDAM tariff rates)

Therefore if we use the domestic customer as the basis to calculate the percentage that are willing to pay 6,000 Rp/m3 for water supply, we assume, as part of this study ,that this will not deter industry from paying an equivalent increased cost for their water supply.

4.5 PDAM Piped Supply

PDAM currently supplies approximately 600 l/s of piped water supply to the city of Bandar Lampung. This is made up of 450 l/s from the intake at Way Kuripan and 150 l/s from springs and ground water. Using the following factors and projections, the forecasted required piped water supply by PDAM up to 2040 has been estimated in Table 8:

• Population projections: Based on PDAM population projects (refer section 4.1)

• Willingness-To-Connect: Based on the surveys conducted by other consultants and Arup’s basic tariff demand sensitivity assessment of this data (refer section 4.4) the graph indicates a 50.7% WTC if the tariff was




Page 33

increased to RP6,000. Whilst, as discussed in section 4.4, the WTC decreases as the tariffs increase, and the tariffs are projected to increase on a yearly basis, for the purposes of this study the increases in tariff will be consistent with the increase in purchasing power. Ie. The 50.7% WTC will remain constant through to 2040.

• Non-Revenue Water (NRW): Based on PDAM proposed requirements (refer section 4.2.3). For the purposes of this estimate the level of NRW for both existing and proposed networks is estimated to stabilise at 30% by 2040

• Current PDAM piped water supply (refer section 3.1.1)

• Total Water required (refer section 4.2.4). For the purposes of this assessment, the Base scenario projections have been used.

Table 9: PDAM Pipe Water Supply

Projected

Piped

Water

Demand

Year

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Population 947,634 1,020,871 1,099,768 1,184,762 1,255,244 1,335,389

Total Water

Required

(l/s) using

Base

scenario

1,645 1,891 2,164 2,468 2,760 3,091

Willingness

to Connect

%*

50.7% 50.7% 50.7% 50.7% 50.7% 50.7%

Total piped

water

required at

tap (l/s)

834 958 1,097 1,251 1,400 1,567

Non-

Revenue

Water (%)

28.5 28.3 28.6 28.4 28.2 27.5

Total piped

water

required at

source (l/s)

1,167 1,337 1,537 1,748 1,949 2,162

Current

PDAM

water supply

600 600 600 600 600 600

Additional

Water

Supply

Required

from

567 737 937 1,148 1,349 1,562




Page 34

PDAM (l/s)

Table 8 indicates that based on the predicted willingness to connect of the growing population; there is sufficient demand for additional sources of piped water supply from PDAM. As the groundwater supply decreases, the pressures of finding this supply will increase. Table 8 also indicates that according to the willingness to connect data, there will be a heavy demand for water from sources other than PDAM piped supply. The capability of the region to satisfy these demands is outside the scope of this report.

Figure 14: Future Piped Water Demand

4.6 Reducing NRW to Influence Water Demand

A sensitivity analysis was undertaken as part of this study to review what effect reducing the water losses due to NRW will have on future demands. There is a possibility to reduce the current network losses to 20% rather than 35% as shown in Table 6. This would reduce overall NRW for both current and proposed networks to 20% rather than 27.5% by 2040. The effect of this NRW reduction would be reducing the total piped demand from 1,562 l/s to 1,359 l/s by 2040. Whilst this signifies an overall reduction of 203 l/s, there will be a very high cost to implement a reduction from 52% to 20%. This very high cost would make the feasibility of further NRW reductions beyond 35% unrealistic.




Page 35

Future Water Supply Sources 5

5.1 Options for Water Supply

When considering options for water supply it is apparent that the major problem for the city of Bandar Lampung is the lack of raw water sources. The potential sources of additional raw water are discussed in this section. Development of new sources alone will also be insufficient as investment will also be required in additional treatment and storage facilities and transmission and distribution networks. Additional measures to provide greater access of the public to clean water such as public taps should also be explored as well as actions to discourage wasteful water habits (which increase demand pressure). There should also be encouragement to look towards more sustainable water management measures such as collection and reuse of rainwater for non-drinking purpose within households (such as washing etc.).

The majority of potable water is obtained through groundwater extraction within the city. An increasing potable water demand as well decreasing water quality (due to saltwater intrusion) will increase the pressure on the city to find alternative sources of potable water supply. According to the various surveys discussed in section 4.3.1, the majority of surveyed residents (> 60%) would like to connect to a piped water supply if one was available (and depending upon the cost to connect). The reasons for this are primary linked to security of supply and quality of water.

As discussed in section 4.5, according to the calculated future demand for piped water in the city of Bandar Lampung, there is currently a deficit of 900 l/s (2015 est.) which will increase by 2,180 l/s in 2040. It is evident that the present water demand is constrained by the existing production capacity, and there is a very good opportunity for providing increased demand particularly considering the current low service coverage.

Over the last 30 years, there have been a variety of water supply studies and options that have been discussed and suggested for adoption. Some of these studies are discussed briefly in section 1.3.

This section discusses the water supply options that could be developed to meet the predicted piped water supply and recommends a strategy/framework that would priories the development of these water sources according to the predicated growth and demand requirements.

The key types of water supply that are considered are:

- Do Nothing

- Surface Water Supply

- Groundwater Supply

- Recycled Water Supply

- Desalination




Page 36

The discussion below highlights the fact that there is not a single solution that could adopted, rather various strategies and infrastructure will need to be developed if Bandar Lampung is to meet its future requirement for piped water supply by 2040.

The locations of the various water supply options can be seen in Figure 14.

5.1.1 Do Nothing

The “Do-Nothing” scenario is not a feasible option for a variety of reasons. These include the following:

• Increasing demand for a secure, safe and hygienic water supply compared to groundwater supply

• Decreasing quality of groundwater supply through saltwater intrusion

• Increasing pressure on water resources allocation from industry and agriculture.

5.1.2 Surface Water Supply

There are 19 rivers within the Bandar Lampung city boundary as well as various major rivers outside such as Way Sekampung and Way Sabu. Of the city rivers, there are only 2 which have sizeable catchment areas - Way Kuala and Way Kuripan.

Therefore the viable surface water supply options that are included as part of this study are discussed in further detail below.

5.1.2.1 Way Kuala

The steep geography of the Way Kuala River results in most of the flow being quickly disposed of to the sea and as a consequence, the usable flow is relatively low. Due to the small size of this stream – it is not anticipated to be a viable option for water extraction of any size.

5.1.2.2 Way Kuripan

Way Kuripan and its tributaries drain the eastern slopes of Gunung Betung. The catchment area is approximately 55km2 and consists of steep mountainous terrain giving rise to sharp run-off peaks in streamflow.

The Way Kuripan is currently the source of the majority (75%) of piped water supply to the city of Bandar Lampung. This is supplied through the existing intake and two package treatment plants of 225 l/s capacity each at Sumur Putri, which is close to PDAM’s main office. The total extraction of 450 l/s of raw water from the river is the maximum possible with run-of-river intake facilities.

Various studies have indicated that significant investment for major infrastructure and storage would be required to increase the yield from the river. One study has calculated that extraction can be increased up to 1,300 l/s. However this facilities to enable this would include a 45m high dam which is not considered feasible




Page 37

given the location of Way Kuripan within the boundary of the city due to potential flooding of the residents upstream.

Previous studies have identified that Way Kuripan has characteristics of a Class 2/3 river with moderately high levels of BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) and COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand). A Class 2 to 3 is indicative of moderately polluted water (Class 4 is very polluted and requires significant treatment before it can be recycled as potable water).

5.1.2.3 Way Sabu

Way Sabu is located around 32km southwest of the city and discharges into Lampung Bay. Way Sabu has a catchment area of 105 km2, almost twice the area of Way Kuripan. The dry weather flow of this river has been estimated to be about 700 l/s. There is currently a water intake, reservoir and storage facility about 2km upstream of the river discharge which was constructed in 1998/99. These facilities take off 200 l/s to supply the adjacent army base.

Various studies have looked at increasing the water off-take potential of this river which have resulted in the following:

• A run-off-river scheme for medium term (700 l/s)

• A dam scheme for very long term (1,000 l/s)

The two options above would have to take into account the addition of a minimum environmental flow and the army base requirements. Once these requirements have been taken into account, it is likely that the potential flows for piped water will decrease to less than 500 l/s for run-of-river and 800 l/s for the dam option. The construction of infrastructure to implement these solutions is not cost effective for these flow sizes. For example, the cost to construct a dam in Way Sabu was estimated at US$ 50 million in 1989 (Bandar Lampung Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Program Volume 3). In today’s terms this would cost over US$100 million (and that doesn’t include the cost of the water treatment plant, water transmission or distribution lines).

The option of constructing a tunnel to divert the headwaters of the Way Sabu into the Way Kuripan has also been identified however this was not considered practical due to the cost and potential long term effects on the environment.




Page 38

Figure 15: Study Area




Page 39

5.1.2.4 Way Sekampung

Way Sekampung is a major river to the 30km to North of Bandar Lampung City. It drains from the eastern slopes of the Bukit Barisan range, flows eastwards through generally flat to undulating terrain and discharges into the Java Sea on the eastern coast of Sumatra. The total catchment area Way Sekampung is estimated at 2,581m2. Way Sekampung is a major supplier of irrigation water within the Lampung province and conveys water for approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land. Way Sekampung has two major water infrastructure facilities: Batutegi Dam and Argoguruh Weir.

Batutegi Dam is an earth-rockfill dam on the Way Sekampung. Built in 2001, it is located approximately 95km north west of Bandar Lampung city and 65km west of Argoguruh weir. With a maximum height of 125m and crest length of 700m, it has maximum water storage volume of 690x106 m3. Located at the base of the dam is a hydroelectric power plant with two turbines capable of generating a combined 28MW off a 30 m3/s flow. The principal reason for constructing Batutegi Dam was to increase the security of irrigation supply during the dry season and to increase the overall yearly storage in order that irrigation rates are increased.

Arup notes that according to Belai Besar currently the dam only releases water for irrigation. There is no requirement to release or hold it for hydroelectric purposes. The hydroelectric dam only serves as a back-up to the power supply for the city. Accordingly there is not requirement to prevent the dam from releasing water as required for environmental, drinking water and irrigation purposes.

The Argoguruh Weir is located near to the Bandar Lampung Airport approximately 35km outside of Bandar Lampung city. This weir was built in 1935 to divert water for irrigation. The demand for water for agriculture has increased so that natural run-off is totally utilised during the dry season and therefore it is important to have the storage facility of Batutegi Dam to increase storage. The Argoguruh Weir consists of two intake facilities, constructed in 1935 and 1985 respectively, which combined take-off approximately an average of 40m3/s per year.

The Way Sekampung River sections downstream of the dam and weir are greatly influenced by the management of these facilities. During the wet season there is sufficient runoff from the surrounding catchment to ensure a minimum flow within these sections however during the season it is necessary for the operators of each facility to discharge a minimal environmental flow of 3.5m3/s (although this number has yet to be confirmed by any authorities and based upon the historical flow data that we have reviewed, it does not appear that the release of this flow is strictly applied when necessary).

As part of this study, a water balance of the historical flows obtained from Batutegi Dam and Agroguruh Weir has been undertaken. The purpose of this water balance is to look at the long term viability of diverting flow from Way Sekampung to supply water to the city of Bandar Lampung. The flow balance has been calculated by reviewing the flows from 01 January 2010 to 31 May 2011 (as flow information for the Dam and Weir comes from different organisations – this was the only period in which both organisations have complete flow records) for the following (Fig. 15):




Page 40

• Out flow from Batutegi Dam (Q2)

• Argoguruh Weir – Irrigation Canal Off Take 1 (Q4a)

• Argoguruh Weir – Irrigation Canal Off Take 2 (Q4a)

• Way Sekampung flow downstream of Argoguruah Weir (Q6)

Figure 16: Way Sekampung Flow Balance Schematic

A table of the complete water balance has been included in Appendix C. A summary of the water balance is shown below in table x.

Table 10: Summary of Way Sekampung Water Balance

Q1*

(m3/s)

Q2

(m3/s)

Q3

(m3/s)

Q4(a)**

(m3/s)

Q4(b)**

(m3/s)

Q5

(m3/s)

Q6**

(m3/s)

Average 7,138 19.0 80.7 14.6 27.2 99.7 57.8

Maximum 8,086 58.6 882.0 40.8 71.7 899.9 899.9

Minimum 4,912 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0

*Historical flow rates obtained from Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Mesuji Sekampung in Nov. 2012

**Historical flow rates obtained from PDAM Way Rilau in Nov.2012

The results of the water balance indicate that over a 17 month period, the minimum flow that was available in Way Sekampung before the irrigation canal offtakes is 7.5m3/s. Excluding 3.5m3/s for environmental flow downstream of Argoguruh Weir, with correct water management, this still allows for up 4m3/s to be diverted for other purposes such as water supply. The probabilities of different levels of flow have been included in Appendix C2.

Due to lack of dam operation data for a longer period, it is not possible to carry out a full flow balance of Way Sekampung for an extended period. However, the historical river flow data at Argogurah Weir suggests that there were 201 days on which the river flow before irrigation demand was below the 3.5 m3/s

Canal 2 offtake Q4b

Batutegi Dam

Inflow to Dam

Q1

Outflow from dam

Q2

Contribution to river

flow by catchment

downstream of dam

Q3

Canal 1 offtake Q4a

Discharge through Argoguruh Weir

Q6

Way Sekampung

River Flow

Q5




Page 41

environmental flow requirement during the period of 1996 to 2010. The lowest river flow in Way Sekampung upstream of the canal discharge was observed at 1.292 m3/s between 3rd September 2007 and 5th September 2007. This means that during those driest days a top-up flow of 190,770 m3/day from the dam is required just to maintain the minimum environmental flow.

Water take-off for irrigation at Argoguruh Weir is managed by various parties in Balai Besar. There are unofficial meetings between operators and suppliers throughout the year to regulate water release. There are no official irrigation water permits that govern water release.

As a result, the successful allocation of water resource to irrigation, future bulk water supply scheme and environmental flow requires close coordination and cooperation between all stakeholders, especially during the low flow seasons. The purpose of the Technical Principles for the Memo of Understanding within this report is to start the dialogue between the different water stakeholders to ensure that management of water release takes into account the extraction of water for potable use.

To guarantee the security of supply and the capability of the dam to supply 4m3/s – a sensitivity study was undertaken as part of this study to assess the effect of supplying a long-term supply of 4m3/s to make up for the longest shortfall recorded. According to the records that are available for the study, the longest period in which the river flow dropped below 4m3/s for a noticeable period took place in 1997. During this year, the flow was recorded below 4m3/s, almost continuously, for 75 days.

During this duration, the amount of water required to top-up the flow to 4m3/s has been calculated as 3,500,000m3. If we include a factor of safety of 1.5 then the total water required to guarantee a security of supply during the worst recorded period of low flow is 5,250,000m3. According to records available for Batutegi Dam between start of 1996 to end of 2010, the lowest volume measured in the dam is 424,000,000m3.

Therefore the conclusion of this sensitivity studies indicates that there is sufficient security of supply in the dam to meet the low flow requirements (which is less than 1.5% of the lowest recorded volume in the dam). However this very much depends upon the management of the dam and the amount of water released for irrigation. It is very important that the focus of river water management obtains the cooperation and coordination between all stakeholders. The mass balance study conducted by Arup has demonstrated that there would be sufficient water for irrigation, water supply scheme and environmental flow if the operation of Batutegi Dam has taken all water needs into account. In other words, it is critical that the dam operators at Batutegi Dam continue to release water from the dam to ensure that there is sufficient supply to meet the environmental flow requirements and also the water supply requirements for the scheme (even in the low flow periods). This is discussed in further detail in Section 8 of this report.

There are two options that could be considered for the development of a Way Sekampung water source. The first, which is assumed to be the most economical, is to provide a run of the river supply upstream of Argoguruh Weir (i.e. just to offtake directly off the river). The second is to provide a Regulating Dam approximately halfway between Batutegi Dam and Argoguruh Weir.

From our understanding of the history of the studies for these two options, run-of- -river offtakes of up to 500 l/s can be adopted, without the requirements of having




Page 42

a regulation dam. Any flows above 500 l/s require a regulating dam to be constructed (based on cost estimates in previous reports this could cost approximately US$100M plus the additional cost of expanding the water treatment plant and transmission pipeline capacity). If a regulating dam is constructed the extraction licence could be increased to up to 2,000L/sec. Based on previous studies and taking these requirements into account, an abstraction license for 500 l/s has been obtained from the government. This license is based upon constructing a run-of -river scheme and is included within Appendix B.

Proposed 500L/sec water supply scheme

The currently proposed option of extracting 500L/second of water from the Way Sekampung appears to be the most suitable immediate option for increasing the supply of water to Bandar Lampung for the following reasons:

- Reliability: based on the catchment information available it appears to be more reliable than the other sources of supply for the city. This is based on the assumption that a reasonable MOU is agreed to between all parties to manage and prioritise the use of water in the river.

- Quantity: Whilst the license to extract water is only 500L/sec, this is significantly higher than the other river sources and still represents a substantive increase in the supply to the city.

- Quality: The upstream catchment for Way Sekampung appears to be relatively undeveloped and the results of water quality sampling have confirmed that it is suitable for potable water supply

- Environmental Impact: The impact of PDAM extracting water from the river for water supply (maximum of 500L/sec) appears to be inconsequential relative to the license that Belai Besar has to extract water from the catchment (30,000L/sec). It is important to note however that the environmental flows in the river need to be managed. Based on the data that Arup has reviewed, the irrigation extraction (at certain times of the year) appears to be occurring at the expense maintaining the required environmental flows in the river.

- Capital/Operational Cost: Whilst the scheme has high capital costs (due to the sources location relative to the city and the requirement for a new distribution system to be constructed), the scheme in the short term is less expensive than the next option (which involves constructing a regulating dam in the Way Sekampung in order to extract a greater volume of water).




Page 43

It is recommended however that the regulating dam is installed as soon as possible as this will enable the extraction capacity in the river to be increased significantly and therefore the available supply from this source to the city to be increased. The main factor preventing this from occurring is the additional capital cost. Options should be explored with respect to government funding or private finance to fund this additional work.

The springs on the slopes of Gedong Betung are still not completely exploited but the expansion of drilled boreholes in the surrounding areas is increasing which has the effect of reducing the capacity of the Spring’s catchment.

Whilst there is still some limited availability to increase water from springs, the amount of water is likely to have little effect upon the lack of piped water sources vs. demand. Instead, water from spring sources should be allocated to settlements and activities within surrounding areas and the security of the sources should be maintained.

5.1.2.5 Surface Water Quality

The quality of surface water varies depending upon the source and location. As part of this study, Arup conducted very basic water tests at various locations to better understand the water quality variables throughout the region. This information has been included in Appendix A2.

5.1.3 Ground Water Supply

The groundwater table is generally high, particularly during the wet season, and shallow wells are used throughout the city. The high use of shallow wells, especially in the northern parts of the city, means ground water depletion is an increasing problem. As the population of Bandar Lampung increases, it is thought that many of the permanent wells will effectively dry up due to over exploitation and decreased recharge in the dry season.

Similarly the quality of the water in the wells is also variable and has resulted in health issues. Groundwater quality is affected by the lifestyle of the local residents. Groundwater in high population areas is very poor as sanitation facilities do not comply with health requirements. Residential areas along riverbanks must be considered a potential source of groundwater pollution. Land limitation causes the distance between public latrines and water sources to be too short, the well structure not waterproof, and wastewater diffusion occurs.

The quality and quantity of surface well water and drilled well water have different characteristics. Water from drilled wells is rainwater that has been infiltrated underground, dissolving soil nutrients so that the local soil characteristics affect the water quality significantly.

In coastal areas of the city, continuous excessive use of groundwater has resulted in seawater intrusion. The shift in groundwater flow and the decline in groundwater hydrostatic pressure has forced groundwater flow from the sea to get into water collection locations.

Currently there are various studies within the region looking at options for recharging the ground water aquifers through different mechanisms such as biopores.




Page 44

A potential source of additional groundwater is at Ketibung approximately 40km SE of the city. In studies undertaken in both 1979 and 1986 it was concluded that although this source could yield 40-50 l/s however both the development and operating costs were too high to make this a viable option.

With regards to other potential deep borehole sources, the hydrogeological character of South Sumatra does not indicate the potential or presence of an aquifer capable of supplying >500 l/s for a long period and certainly not without heavy depletion of all the ground water resources of the area.

5.1.4 Recycled Water

Recycled water has been used to help augment water supply requirements in a number of cities around the world. Water can be recycled from four main sources:

• rainwater (rain caught from the roof or other direct methods of rain capture),

• stormwater (rainwater that has reached the ground or other hard surfaces on the ground like roads, ovals, parks and car parks)

• greywater (from the bath, shower, basin and maybe the kitchen)

• blackwater (from toilets and wastewater outlets) Note that when blackwater is recycled it typically involves the treatment an reuse of both blackwater and greywater as the treatment plants are suitable for treating both of these streams of wastewater.

Recycled water requires treatment of water to a standard that is suitable for reuse. Rainwater that is captured from non-trafficked roof areas is generally considered suitable for reuse for all purposes including drinking (in some instances treatment of the water is required) while the other sources are only considered suitable for non-potable uses (irrigation, toilet flushing, car washing, building washdown etc). Stormwater, greywater and blackwater all require higher levels of treatment than rainwater and to a larger scale than for varying levels of treatment.

In terms of how water could be reused in Bandar Lampung:

• Rainwater – could be collected locally from roofs and stored in rainwater tanks for individual houses. This form of decentralised capture is something that would need to be driven by individual home owners and therefore is not a scheme that could be easily managed or controlled by the Municipal City of Bandar Lampung.

o Issue with rainwater harvesting for Bandar Lampung include:

� Decentralised so difficult to control and enforce (residents may not be keen to install due to cost)

� Quality of water – relies on owners to clean roof and flush out tanks regularly

� Economies of scale – requires tanks for every house which overall will be a very high cost solution when compared with centralised water reuse schemes




Page 45

• Stormwater – this requires a higher level of treatment than rainwater due to the pollutants in street runoff. Accordingly it is more practical in a centralised type scheme with a treatment plant and pumpstations (due to economies of scale).

o Issues with stormwater reuse for Bandar Lampung include:

� Higher level of treatment required (than for rainwater)

� Not suitable for drinking once treated (only non-potable uses)

� Inconsistent supply: rainfall dependent supply which is highly variable and therefore requiring extremely large storages to be viable. Typically high rainfall (and therefore supply) occurs at times of year when the demand is lowest and when demand is highest (i.e. in the dry season) there is little or no supply.

• Greywater Reuse – this type of reuse is typically adopted for large buildings because it involves separating the wastewater streams from a building. The water requires a high level of treatment and is not considered suitable for Bandar Lampung because there aren’t many large buildings and therefore it would not be possible to reuse a significant volume of water (and nor would it be economically viable).

• Wastewater Reuse (blackwater and greywater) – for this type of reuse to be viable economically it is suggested that a centralised reuse scheme is developed. Centralised schemes require a piped wastewater network and centralised wastewater treatment plant or plants. Additional treatment can then be added downstream in order to treat the wastewater to a higher standard suitable for non-potable reuse.

o Issues with wastewater reuse for Bandar Lampung include:

� No centralised wastewater treatment plants to connect to

� High capital cost to implement

Based on the assessment of the various water supply sources identified above centralised water recycling does not appear to be feasible for Bandar Lampung at present because no centralised wastewater infrastructure has been installed. Arup understand that this infrastructure is planned for the city and once constructed and installed this will represent a very good opportunity for the city to build the additional treatment and conveyance infrastructure required to reuse the water. It is estimated that by 2020 over 2,000L/sec of water supply could be extracted from a centralised wastewater reuse scheme. It is also recommended that residents are encouraged to install rainwater harvesting tanks to collect stormwater from their roof areas (for irrigation purposes only). For this decentralised rainwater harvesting to be effective on a wide scale however it is important to ensure that the educational training is undertaken to ensure that the water is reused appropriately and that it is widely implemented via legislation.




Page 46

5.1.5 Desalination

Desalination involves the removal of salt and other minerals from saline water. Salt water is desalinated to produce fresh water suitable for human consumption or irrigation. Large-scale desalination typically uses large amounts of energy and specialised, expensive infrastructure, making it more expensive than fresh water from conventional sources such as rivers or groundwater.

Desalination is a potential option for the city of Bandar Lampung because it is located on the coast so there is ample supply of salt water for treatment. The biggest issue to the viability of implementing desalination in Bandar Lampung is the high cost of treating salt water to make it suitable for potable use. In addition large parts of the city without potable supply are located in the north (a significant distance from potential seawater intake locations (south of the city). Accordingly to implement a desalination scheme in Bandar Lampung would be economically prohibitive based on both the high cost of treating the water and the high infrastructure costs required to pipe and pump the water to the areas of the city where it is required.

According to the data compiled by the USEPA in 1999, the construction of traditional filtration water treatment plants near a river with a capacity of 500l/s(43,200 m3/d) was approximately 325 USD/m3/day. The operational cost of such traditional plant was estimated to be 0.16 USD/m3. Using the world average inflation rate for the past 11 years, the construction cost and operation cost at today’s price would be 462 USD/m3/day and 0.23 USD/m3 respectively. For desalination plants, today’s world average costs for plant construction and water production are 1,200 – 2,200 USD/m3/day and 0.5-0.8 USD/m3, respectively. Table 10 below summarizes the cost of the two different types of plants. This indicative cost comparison illustrates that the costs of building and operating desalination plants are both significantly higher than that of traditional filtration water treatment plants. The construction cost of desalination plants is 2.6

to 4.7 times higher than that of traditional plants and the operation cost of desalination plants is 2.2 – 3.5 times higher.

Table 11: Costs comparison of traditional water treatment plants and desalination plants

Plant Type Construction cost Operation cost

USD /m3/d USD/ m

3

Traditional plant near river (500l/s) 462 0.23

Desalination plant 1,200 – 2,200 0.5 - 0.8

Note that these estimates are global averages. They are indicative and are only provided to give an indication of the order of magnitude difference in costs between desalination and traditional water treatment. Costs will vary significantly from region to region based on a number of factors including the following:

• Experience constructing plants in these countries,

• Quality of raw water at source (poorer quality results in higher CAPEX and OPEX costs),




Page 47

• Specific treatment type adopted for the plants, and

• Availability of equipment or treatment required and relative proximity to plant site

The information above however highlights the fact that desalination is typically significantly more expensive than traditional water treatment with respect to both capital and operational costs. This highlights the fact that the option of desalination for Bandar Lampung is not viable commercially relative to the other options discussed in this report.

5.2 Summary of Water Supply Options

Table 10 below summarises the advantages and disadvantages each of the options discussed in section 5.1.

Table 12: Summary of Initial Options Assessment

Option Advantages Disadvantages

Do Nothing - No infrastructure costs - Existing infrastructure can’t

handle current piped water

demands

- NRW rates increasing

- Quality and quantity of

groundwater supply decreasing

Surface Water Supply

- Way Kuripan - Close proximity to city

- Existing water intake facilities

- 45m dam required to extract up

to 1,300 l/s

- Very polluted city river – will

require expensive treatment

facilities

- Way Sabu - Relatively unexploited and clean

surface water source

- Long distance from city

- Small flows not sufficient to

construct cost effective

infrastructure.

- Additional third-party flows

must be maintained

- Way Sekampung - Sufficient water available (with

proper water management) to

satisfy both irrigation and piped

water demands (particularly since

construction of Batutegi Dam).

- Relatively clean surface water

source

- Long distance from city

- Increasing demands from other

users (eg. Agriculture)

- Extraction rates >500 l/s require

regulation dam (CAPEX est >

US$100M)

- Springs - Clean water source - Only limited availability to

increase water supply

- Not a long term solution




Page 48

Ground Water - Currently has sufficient

capability to supply majority of

Bandar Lampung city water needs

- Various extraction locations in

and outside of city boundary’s

- Studies currently underway

addressing the recharging of

aquifers and groundwater table

through measures such as

biopores.

- Decreasing groundwater table

due to increasing demands

- Decreasing quality of

groundwater due to salt water

intrusion and pollution

- No large aquifers to supply high

sustainable demand

- Closest large extraction location

(only 40-50 l/s) 40km outside of

city

Recycled Water –

Rainwater

- Can provide easily

implementable solutions (such as

rainwater storage) to decrease

demands on piped water supply.

- Offers sustainable infrastructure

that provides key long term

benefits to the community.

- Negative society perception on

using recycled water

-Regulation

- Quality control

Recycled Water –

Stormwater

- Source located in city where

demand is located

- Rainfall dependent supply and

therefore typically doesn’t occur

when demand occurs

- High cost of implementing

scheme.

- Not necessarily acceptable for

potable supply

Recycled Water –

Blackwater

- Consistent supply

- Source located in city

- Can potentially be used

indirectly for potable reuse

- Extremely high cost of

construction (particularly with no

wastewater infrastructure

currently constructed in

Lampung)

Desalination - Close proximity of city to coast

- Ample seawater supply

- Very high capital costs

- High networks costs to transport

water from coast to north of city

(where demand for piped water is

the highest)

Reducing NRW in

current piped water

network

- reducing potable water losses

through existing piped networks.

- increases efficiency of providing

piped water supply networks

- high cost in reducing NRW in

aged existing networks-

complications in reducing NRW

(which often occur within private

properties – and factors such as

illegal tap-offs).

Note: Greywater was not discussed in this table due to the lack of suitable buildings and the fact that it can’t reasonably be implemented on a large scale.

In summary, the following options are not considered suitable for providing short to medium term additional supply to Bandar Lampung:

• Do Nothing – not a viable alternative considering the short term projected shortfall which will only increase significantly over time

• Groundwater – poor reliability, quality and salt water intrusion concerns

• Springs – very limited additional capacity is available




Page 49

• Desalination – very expensive and therefore not justifiable

• Stormwater reuse – Expensive, unreliable supply, not suitable for potable use

• Way Kuripan – Very poor quality, unreliable supply

• Way Sabu – Unreliable supply

The following remaining options should therefore be considered in more detail:

• Way Sekampung – existing planned scheme of 500L/sec

• Way Sekampung Regulating Dam Scheme – 2,000L/sec capacity with potential for even greater supply depending on more detailed modelling of Way Sekampung.

• Wastewater Reuse – In the short term it is very expensive due to lack of wastewater infrastructure. Once a piped network and treatment plants are constructed for the city it would not require a significant additional cost to treat the water to reusable standard. It could then be pumped into the rivers or aquifers within the city for indirect potable reuse.

• Rainwater Reuse – Individual rainwater tanks being mandated for use at houses in Lampung could have a significant impact in reducing the demand for potable supply. This option however needs to be considered carefully when taking into account water quality and how to manage these risks. Recommended Strategy for Piped Water Supply

The strategy of providing a long term solution for the demand of piped water supply for the city of Bandar Lampung is dependent upon two factors:

• The demand for piped water

• The cost and feasibility of providing the piped water supply

Bandar Lampung is a large city in a developing country. It does not have the water and waste water infrastructure that is common in most developed countries. The challenges of providing this infrastructure come from the ability of the local government and people to pay for it. Bandar Lampung is not unique in this regard and the problem of providing a long term, clean and secure piped water supply for the city of Bandar Lampung cannot be solved by adopting one size fix-all solution (as this would be too costly), rather a series of solutions must be implemented to meet the 2040 needs.

It is important that future development plans take into consideration the demand for clean water. Also the willingness to pay an economic price for it is also an important factor in determining the economic viability of future development.

Table 11 below highlights the need to increase the piped water supply to Bandar Lampung.

Table 13: Summary of Future Piped Water Demands

Projected Piped

Water Demand

Year

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Total piped water 1,500 1,719 1,976 2,248 2,507 2,780




Page 50

required for the

city (l/s)

Current PDAM

water supply 600 600 600 600 600 600

Additional Water

Supply Required

from PDAM (l/s)

900 1,119 1,376 1,648 1,907 2,180

Proposed Way

Sekampung

licensed

extraction (2015)

(l/s)

250 500 500 500 500 500

Additional piped

water required

(l/s)

650 619 876 1148 1407 1680

Note: * Way Sekampung water supply will be constructed in two stages so in 2015 will only be supplying 250L/sec (not the full 500L/sec).

As indicated above, there are currently plans in place to implement a water supply source from Way Sekampung to supply 500 l/s. As discussed in section 5.1.2.4, Way Sekampung has potential to supply up to 2,000l/s, however any abstraction above 500 l/s requires the construction of a regulation dam.

1. In sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report various options have been considered and evaluated. The four options which are the most feasible to meet the pipe demand are the following: Way Sekampung 500L/sec water supply scheme (note that this has been considered in the table above)

2. Increase capacity of abstraction from Way Sekampung (from planned 500L/sec to up to 2,000L/sec)

3. Increase rainwater management by encouraging holding tanks and private storage facilities – this could decrease the amount of piped water required by up to 30%

4. Recycled water use. There are currently studies underway to provide centralised waste water treatment facilities. Within the next 10 years, it is likely that a treatment plant will be constructed. The opportunity shouldn’t be missed to adopt additional treatment to recharge rivers, aquifers or direct piped for domestic non-potable use. It is estimated that it could supply up to 2,000L/sec.

The implementation of a combination of these options will depend upon the city’s financial capacity to deliver them (either through government funding or through private finance), government regulation (with respect to implementation of the rainwater tanks) and overall wastewater infrastructure development (until this occurs option 3 won’t be practical). Arup notes that additional groundwater studies currently underway (by third parties) will assist in addressing the decreasing groundwater table and quality and also assess the feasibility of




Page 51

recharging options. These may also assist in addressing the long term water supply requirements.




Page 52

Conclusions 6

The desktop study undertaken in this assessment has looked at the current and future water demands, the current water supply sources and future water supply options and recommendations for the development of piped water supply to meet the requirements of the city. Arup notes the limitations of this study in that it was primarily a desktop exercise which relied on information from previous reports and investigations and high level consultation with relevant stakeholders. To confirm the findings of this report it is recommended that additional site investigation is conducted and that a detailed feasibility study is undertaken. (refer to Section 7 for more information).

The future demand for piped water has been calculated by reviewing the project population growth and their appetite for connecting to a piped network (based upon current and future tariffs). The results have indicated that with the current infrastructure in place, in 2015 there will be a deficit of approximately 955 l/s which will increase by 250% to 2,279 l/s in 2040.

Piped water supply in Bandar Lampung is the responsibility of the Bandar Lampung Water Authority (PDAM Way Rilau). The PDAM piped water system is made up of a combination of surface water supply sources such as rivers and springs, and ground water extraction bores. Currently PDAM sources around 75% of their total supply of 600 l/s from the Way Kuripan, which is one of the largest rivers running through the city. Based on the current supply, PDAM will need to find alternative sources of water for an additional demand of 355 l/s in 2015 increasing to 1,679 l/s by 2040. The selection of potential new water sources depend their size and consistency and the cost to implement the solution. This assessment has looked at the following new potential water sources:

• Surface water supply

• Ground water supply

• Recycled water

• Desalinated water

Each of the options has advantages and disadvantages. The two principal disadvantages common to most of the options is the size of the source, ie. Most of the rivers within or close to Bandar Lampung do not have the capacity to meet the requirements (and similarly groundwater is unreliable in terms of quantity) or cost to implement (desalination is not a viable option for example). Bandar Lampung is a large city in a developing country. It does not have the water and waste water infrastructure that is common in most developed countries. The challenges of providing this infrastructure come from the ability of the local government and people to pay for it. Bandar Lampung is not unique in this regards and the problem for providing a long term, clean and secure piped water supply for the city of Bandar Lampung cannot be solved by adopting one fix-all solution (as this would be too costly), rather a series of solutions must be implemented to meet the 2040 needs.




Page 53

As a result of its investigation, Arup recommends that the planned Way Sekampung 500 Litre/second water supply scheme proceeds. Arup notes however that the current scheme alone will not provide sufficient supply for the entire city’s future demand requirements. The city’s overall demand in 2040 is estimated to be 3,100 Litres/second (for the base case scenario). The combined existing supply of 600 Litres/second plus the 500L/sec planned supply still leaves the city with a significant shortfall of approximately 2,000Litres/second by 2040. Accordingly it is recommended that the following additional options are considered as a priority:

1. Increase capacity of abstraction from Way Sekampung (from planned 500L/sec to up to 2,000L/sec). This expansion should be considered as a high priority that is implemented as soon as it can be justified financially. The expansion requires the construction of a regulating dam in the river and increasing the size of the proposed WTP and transmission pipeline in order to convey the additional water.

2. Increase individual household rainwater management by encouraging holding tanks and private storage facilities – this could decrease the amount of piped water required by up to 30%

3. Centralised wastewater reuse. There are currently studies underway to provide centralised waste water treatment facilities. Within the next 10 years, it is likely that a treatment plant will be constructed. The opportunity shouldn’t be missed to adopt additional treatment to recharge rivers, aquifers or direct piped for domestic non-potable use. Conservatively such a scheme has the capacity to supply up to 2,000Litres/second of reusable water from 2020 onwards.

Other options that should be considered will need to be evaluated individually focusing on the following aspects:

• Reliability • Quantity • Cost • Quality • Environmental impact • Constructability

Based on these factors the hierarchy of implementation can be considered as follows:

a. 500 l/s abstraction from Way Sekampung b. Decrease NRW of existing water supply network c. Increase individual household rainwater management d. Centralised wastewater reuse (recycled) for non-potable domestic and

industrial use e. Increase abstraction from Way Sekampung f. Groundwater recharging g. Increase abstraction from Way Kuripan h. Increase abstraction from Way Sabu i. Desalination




Page 54

In summary, there are a number of technical options available to resolve Bandar Lampung’s shortfall in water supply. The implementation of a combination of these options will depend upon the city’s financial capacity to deliver them (either through government funding or through private finance), government regulation (with respect to implementation of the rainwater tanks) and overall wastewater infrastructure development (until this occurs option 3 won’t be practical). Arup notes that additional groundwater studies currently underway (by third parties) will assist in addressing the decreasing groundwater table and quality and also assess the feasibility of recharging options. These may also assist in addressing the long term water supply requirements.




Page 55

Recommended Additional Studies / 7Investigations

The outcome of the study has been to demonstrate that PPP1 is the best option for increasing the supply of safe and secure water to Bandar Lampung. It is important to recognise that this study is based on limited data which has not come from continuous monitoring. Existing conditions can only be well understood with the provision of a reasonable level of information. In the long term, continuous work is required to undertake periodic review and assessment of the findings of this report and to ensure that the correct solutions to meet the predicted water demand growth in Bandar Lampung are recognised. These continuous studies that should be undertaken by authorities and stakeholders include the following:

1. Flow monitoring - in the potential river sources throughout the catchment to confirm the flow and therefore potential supply available. To date, there is very limited data available and that which is provided is not necessarily for the correct time periods.

- Way Sekampung: For example for the Way Sekampung there is 15 years of data available for the Argoguruh Weir (1996-2010) and 3 years for Batutegi Dam (2010-2012). Accordingly there is only 17 months of overlapping data which makes it difficult to conduct a meaningful hydrological analysis of the catchment and therefore accurately estimate the reliability of the supply. - Other sources: No known flow data is available for the other potential sources of supply. This makes it very difficult to accurately determine the flow available and the reliability of supply.

2. Water Quality Sampling – Currently there is only very limited water quality sampling data available for Way Sekampung. There isn’t any data that is readily available for the other sources. This makes it difficult to accurately determine the treatment requirements for these sources. More detailed sampling of a number of these water supply sources would ensure a greater understanding of the treatment requirements and therefore suitability of the sources.

3. Groundwater Monitoring: No data has been provided for Arup’s review of the groundwater quality and yield. A groundwater monitoring program would assist in understanding the quality, available yield and also the extent of the salt water intrusion into the groundwater table. This would provide a greater level of information on any potential capacity that may be available for use.

4. Detailed Feasibility Study of the options recommended in this report including developing schematic designs, detailed cost estimates, multi-criteria analysis to determine the most appropriate solutions and additional




Page 56

testing of flow and water quality to understand the reliability and treatment requirements for these solutions.

Technical Principles for Memo of 8Understanding

8.1 Introduction

Issues of water resources management will gain increasing importance in the years ahead in Indonesia as populations continue to grow, urbanisation occurs and corresponding water demand continues to increase. This is relevant to Bandar Lampung due to the limited number of viable supply options. Allocation of water rights and priority of usage can be managed through integrated water resources management (IWRM). IWRM recognises that there will always be more potential demand for water than there is supply, and that to deal with this there is a need for compromise and negotiation. While there is a desire to seek so-called “win-win” scenarios, these are often difficult to put into practice in real terms. Issues of water quantity include emerging conflicts between competing uses (agricultural, industrial and municipal), and between surface water and groundwater in rapidly growing urban areas. Though industrial and municipal water use, in general in Indonesia is still relatively low, it will increase over time. Meeting this demand will require a transfer of water in dry season from agriculture to municipal and industrial use. Minimizing the social and economic costs for farmers and potential disruption to agricultural output will require that water resources will need to be managed according to the integrated river basin principles and systems put in place. The challenge of meeting the water demand during the dry season will become even more complex if the pollution from growing urban and industrial waste is considered as factor to be managed. Therefore, the reality is that hard decisions will need to be made, and that in allocating water among competing users there will be winners and losers. The aim must therefore be to develop institutions and agreements that have the respect and legitimacy to enforce their decisions even when these are unpopular. To guarantee a water supply source for a piped water network from the Way Sekampung, it is essential to secure the quality and quantity of the water from the river.

These draft technical principles for a Memo of Understanding form part

of the Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report. The guidance

provided in this section is technical only and outlines the high level

principles that should be considered by the various stakeholders when

developing the MOU.

The agreement of these draft principles and their ratification and

implementation through a formal Memo of Understanding between the

relevant agencies is outside the scope of this report.




Page 57

8.2 Federal and Local Government Structure for the Management of Water Resources

8.2.1 Federal Structure

The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Article 33 states that, “production branches which are important to the country and which provide for the needs of the people must be controlled by the State. Earth and water and all natural resources contained in their bodies are managed under authority of the State and utilized in the interests of the welfare of the nation”. This enshrines the concept that Indonesia’s natural resources belong to the state and are to be used for the welfare of the Indonesian people. Operational policy of this basic rule is explained in Law (Undang-Undang) number 7 of 2004. This law reiterates the constitutional principle that water resources have a social function: water exploitation should be used for the highest prosperity of the people and should be controlled by the state. This law promulgates the institution of two departments in association with water resources:

• The Department of Public Works is authorized to coordinate all efforts and

activities for the planning, detailed engineering, supervision, business development, maintenance, as well as legislation and utilization of surface water resources, which also includes water springs.

• The Department of Mining and Energy is authorized to manage groundwater resources, which also includes thermal spring waters.

The institutional framework is, in fact, relatively complex, because it involves many agencies and each agency might produce individual regulations (including Government Regulation, Presidential Decrees and Decisions, Ministerial Regulations, Directorate Regulations, Governor and District Regulations) to control water resources.

8.2.2 Federal Policies

During the government period 2004-2009, the following five strategic policies on water resources management were determined:

• Water resource conservation: This policy is designed to conserve and maintain the availability and functions of water resources in order to meet the water needs not only for current generation, but also for the future generations. The efforts are directed towards increasing water availability, to improving water quality, as well as to recovering and improving the capacity of the environment.

• Optimal use of water resources: This policy includes various efforts in the provision, use, development and management of water resources to meet the various water demands: household, agriculture, municipalities, industries, electricity, tourism and environment.

• Control of potential water-destructive capacity: This policy aims to reduce and copy with the potential impacts of flood, drought, erosion and abrasion on the area of agricultural and industrial production, human settlement and other infrastructure. The efforts include preventive




Page 58

measures to protect production and settlement areas, and public infrastructure from floods, to recover environmental conditions, and to improve community alertness on the issues of floods and other potential damage caused by water.

• Empowerment and improvement of community, private and government participation: This policy includes increasing the cooperation and participation of all stakeholders, including government, private sector and community to achieve a productive, effective, efficient and equitable water resources management system, without sacrificing public interests, and to prepare effective and efficient government institutions in association with decentralization, democratization, synergy privatization, and conflict resolution in water resources management.

• Increasing transparency and availability of data and information on water resources management: This policy intends to push democratization in water resource management. Transparency in the processes of water resource management should be improved to provide more access to all stakeholders to participate in the implementation of water resources development programmes.

8.2.3 Federal Laws

The laws and regulations concerning water resources and their management are as follows:

• Indonesian Law Number 7, year 2004: water resources laws • Government Regulation Number 77, year 2001: irrigation • Government Regulation Number 82, year 2001: water quality management

and water pollution control • Presidential Instruction Number 3, year 1999: policy reformation on

irrigation management • Presidential Decree Number 9, year 1999: coordination team on river

water use and development policies • Presidential Decree Number 123, year 2001 (renewed by President Decree

Number 83, year 2002): coordination team on water resources management

• Decision of the Coordinator Ministry on Economy, Finance, and Industry • Decision of the Coordinator Ministry on Economy • Decision of the Ministry of Settlements and Regional Infrastructures (Dept

of Public Works) • Decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs • Decision of the Ministry of Environment • Provincial Regulations on formation of the agencies for water resources

development (8 provinces) • Provincial Regulations on water pollution control (4 provinces) • Governor Decisions on development of the Coordination Teams for

Provincial Water Resources Management (8 provinces) • District and Municipality Regulation concerning water resources for

domestic, agricultural and industrial use. As can be seen there are many difference government departments, from the President’s Office to the Provincial Government and from the Ministry of Economy to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Decision making and enforcement of




Page 59

water policy should be undertaken at Provincial level or even lower to ensure effective implementation.

8.2.4 Province of Lampung Structure

In general, water use priority is regulated under Law No. 7 of 004 on Water Resource (“Law No. 7/2004”) and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2008 on Management of Water Resource (“GR No. 42/2008”). It states that the priority of water provision is to fulfil daily needs and to provide irrigation for society agricultural needs in the existing irrigation system. The terms daily needs in the regulations shall include providing drinking water. Therefore, in general the priority of water use shall be for daily purpose (including drinking water) and society agriculture purpose (irrigation). However this doesn’t give a hierarchy or importance of implementation. Therefore in lieu of a law guaranteeing supply, a MOU and working relationship that is strictly followed, particularly in Way Sekampung, is key.

Specifically, Law No. 7/2004 and GR No. 42/2008 regulates that determination of priority hierarchy of water resource provision on any river area shall be conducted by Minister, Governor, or Regent/Mayor depends on his authority and responsibility. In this regard, the Minister, Governor, or Regent/Mayor shall coordinate with the coordination board of water resource management in the relevant river.

Based on Law No. 7/2004, Government, Provincial Government, and Regency / City Government has the authority to determine and provide license regarding provision, function and utilization of water. GR No. 42/2008 stipulates that utilization of water resource for surface water resource obliges to obtain license from Regent/Mayor for the river area in one Regency/City; Governor for river area across Regencies/Cities; or Minister for river area across provinces, countries and national strategic river.

The ownership of PDAMs lies with city, municipal or provincial governments. The management of PDAMs is quite complex, as many government institutions are responsible for their operation. The Department of Public Works is responsible for the technical matters of infrastructure and raw water management; managerial aspects are the responsibility of the Department of Home Affairs, whilst financial matters are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance. The Department of Health is responsible for setting the requirements for drinking water quality.

Therefore it is our understanding that the management and allocation of:

- irrigation water is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Works while

- municipal water is under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Government of Bandar Lampung.

However both Balai Besar, who control irrigation water and infrastructure on Way Sekampung, and PDAM Way Rilau, who control potable water within the city of Bandar Lampung and controlled through the Provincial Government (refer to Figure 1 which contains a diagram of the Key Stakeholders and Decision Makers for Water Allocation in the Way Sekampung Basin).




Page 60

Figure 17: Water Allocation – Key Stakeholders and Decision Makers in the Way Sekampung Basin

8.3 Way Sekampung Basin Water Allocation

8.3.1 Water Allocation

The municipal water use of 0.5m3/s appears to be relatively minor in comparison to the total water demand. In comparison, a yearly average of water allocated to irrigation at Argoguruh Weir is 30m3/s. This means the total required municipal use of 0.5m3/s is only proportionate to 1.7% of the total available water. The simple, but wrong, conclusion drawn from this is that ensuring the municipal water availability should not be much of a problem. This is a serious and dangerous mistake. The crucial point is that the 5,250,000m3 (refer section 5.1.2.4) requirement for municipal and environmental water is the amount that must be safeguarded at all times and in the worst conditions.

It is therefore essential to have some concept of drinking water reserve; that is an amount of water held in storage (in this case Batutegi Dam) for domestic use, which can be relied on completely, and which is not allowed to be used for non-domestic purposes. The implication of having this reserve concept is that once it has been established, non-domestic (irrigation) uses of water will be potentially reduced, and the mechanisms to allow this to happen developed and put into place. It is important to realise that where a reserve is not safeguarded, the sustainability of the proposed system cannot be taken for granted.

Whilst various stakeholders have confirmed that there is a requirement of 3.5m3/s of environmental flow, this is currently not enforced all year round (this was




Page 61

verified by site visits). We could also not identify rules or regulations that state the legal requirements of providing this flow.

8.4 Technical Principals for Memorandum of Understanding

8.4.1 Process for Implementation

PDAM Way Rilau has been granted a licence to extract 500 l/s of water from Way Sekampung, upstream of Argoguruh Weir. In order to secure the sustainability of year round extraction a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) needs to be agreed upon. It is essential the process of implementing an MOU should include all the related government agencies, private institutions, and other relevant stakeholders. All stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making, but particular emphasis should be put on the active participation of users. The focus is on decision making at the community level, and hence on the involvement of the key stakeholder groups at this level, the community, or more specifically the users of the water resources. This statement emphasises an involvement in, rather than control of decision-making. This reflects the fact that IWRM decision-making is complex and involves multiple stakeholders at multiple scales. To suggest that one group of stakeholders should ‘control’ the process is both unrealistic and undesirable. In the case of Way Sekampung, the relevant stakeholders include the following government agencies and departments:

• Balai Besar and Balai Metro, who control Batutegi Dam and Agroguruh Weir respectively,

• PDAM who controls municipal water in Bandar Lampung • The Municipal Government of Bandar Lampung • The Provincial Government of Lampung

These stakeholders need to agree to the technical principals, which will form the Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU is an official government document that is to be drafted by the government and agreed at implementation level. The drafting and implementation of the MOU is outside the scope of this study.

8.4.2 Technical Principals for Water Extraction on Way

Sekampung

There are key technical principals that form the basis of the MOU. These principals ensure the viability, security and sustainability of supplying 500 l/s to the City of Bandar Lampung. Figure 2 below summarises these principles. A detailed explanation of each principal follows




Page 62

Figure 18: Key Technical Principals for MOU

1. Quantity (Storage and Management) Throughout normal periods of the year, management of the water allocation must be coordinated by Batutegi Dam operators and Agroguruh Weir operators to ensure that is sufficient flow within the river, upstream of Argoguruh Weir, to extract 0.5m3/s and provide an additional 3.5m3/s for environmental flow. As discussed in section 8.3, in order to safeguard the sustainability of the extracting 0.5m3/s at all times and in all conditions, there is a requirement that 5,250,000m3 of water be safeguarded at all times in Batutegi Dam. This water can then be potentially released during dry periods to meet both municipal and environmental flow requirements.

2. Quality The quality of flow into Way Sekampung must be ensured by controlling the amounts of pollutants that could potentially flow into it. This involves all the stakeholders and decision makers in the catchment level including the provincial government as well as the Town and City Planning.

3. Communication and Consultation

It is essential the process of implementing an MOU should include all the related government agencies, private institutions, and other relevant stakeholders. All stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making, but particular emphasis should be put on the active participation of users. The focus is on decision making at the community level, and hence on the involvement of the key stakeholder groups at this level, the community, or more specifically the users of the water resources.

4. Legitimacy The legitimacy of any MOU will be enhanced and validated if the Provincial Government supports the process and enforces the adoption by the relevant parties.

5. Agreement and Implementation

The process may involve setting up a Way Sekampung Catchment Management Committee. Those on the committee will need support and training in monitoring and decision-making about issues such as allocation

Key Principles:

1. Quantity (through storage and management)

2. Quality

3. Communication and Consultation

4. Legitimacy

5. Agreement and Implementation

6. Duration

7. River Level




Page 63

of water rights, demand management, and source protection, as well as in using monitoring to ensure that the domestic reserve is maintained and protected.

6. Duration

The duration of a MOU will need to be agreed upon by all parties. This could be reviewed on a yearly basis or subject to other requirements.

7. River Level To be maintained at a level sufficient to ensure that adequate extraction can occur from the river.




References

Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund (IIGF), “Demand on PDAM water supply in Bandar Lampung”, MARS Qualitative Consultant, November 2011

BPPSPAM, “Real Demand Survey and Water Demand Study”, 2010

Australian Development Assistance Bureau and DG Cipta Karya, Ministry of Public Works (MPW) ,” Bandar Lampung Water Supply Project - Master Plan And Feasibility Report”, Vol.1, Sinclair Knight and Partners, June 1986

DG Cipta Karya Ministry of Public Works and Asian Development Bank (ADB), “Study of Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Bandar Lampung”, Final Report Vol. 1, GKW consultant, May 1994.

Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, “Optimal Development of Water Infrastructure for Regional Development in Way Sekampung and Way Seputih Basins”, Vol 4, Supporting Report, 4.2 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply, Nippon Koei Co, March 2003

Ministry of Human Settlement and Infrastructure, Bandar Lampung Water Supply Concession Pre-feasibility Study, March 2001. GHD.

Australia Indonesia Partnership – Wastewater Investment Master Plan, September 2011

Australian Development Assistance Bureau, Bandar Lampung Water Supply Project Study, Crash Programme, October 2015

Pekerjaan: FS Regulating Dam di Sungai Way Sekampung, May 2012, Widya Graha Asana

Way Seputih, Way Sekampung Irrigation Project – Study on Optimal Development of Water Infrastructure for Regional Development in Way Sekampung and Way Seputih Basis, March 2002, Nippon Koei Co

Republik Indonesia, Departemen Permukiman Dan Prasarana Wilayay, Proyek, Pembangunan Waduk Batutegi, November 2003, Nippon Koei Co, Ltd.

Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Public Work, Bandar Lampung Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Program, Draft Supplementary Feasibility Study Report, Volume III, Water Supply, December 1989, C. Lotti and Associati

Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, Direktorate Jenderal Sumber Daya Air (SDA), Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Mesuji Sekampung, Rancangan Pola Pengelolaan, Wilayah Sungai Mesji Sekampung




Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), Executive Summary, Bandar Lampung City Resilience Strategy to Climate Change 2011 and 2030

Water Demand Forecast Methodology for California Water Planning Areas –

Work Plan and Model Riview, July 2003, Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd.

Ex-Post Evaluation of Japanese ODA Loan Project “Way Sekampung Irrigation

Proejct (I) (II) (III)”, Shinko Overseas Management Consulting, Inc.




Appendices

Appendix A

Photographs




Page A1

A1 Study Area Photographs

1. Agroguruh Weir – High level Spillway

2. Agroguruh Weir - Irrigation Canal




Page A2

3. Agroguruh Weir– Irrigation Canal Control Gates

4. Agroguruh Weir– Downstream Way Sekampung – min flow during wet season




Page A3

5. Batu Pituh Springs – Storage Facility

6. Batu Pituh Springs – Intake and storage Facility




Page A4

7. Way Kuripan – Water Intake Facility

8. Way Kuripan – Intake Weir




Page A5

9. Way Kuripan – Treatment Plant

10. Way Kuripan – Treatment Plant




Page A6

11. Way Kuripan – Treatment Plant Steel Tanks

12. Way Kuripan – Treatment Plant Dosing Facilities




Page A7

13. Way Kuripan – Treatment Plant Testing Laboratory

14. Way Kuripan – Treatment Plant Aluminium Sulphate Storage




Page A8

15. Batutegi Dam – Downstream Face

16. Batutegi Dam – Upstream Face and Storage




Page A9

17. Batutegi Dam – Hydroelectric Dam

18. Batutegi Dam – Flood spillway




Page A10

19. Batutegi Dam – Downstream flow

20. Batutegi Dam – Wet Season Environmental Flow




Page A11

21. Way Sabu – Intake Facilities for Army Base Reservoir

22. Way Sabu – Weir at Intake Facilities




Page A12

23. Way Sabu – Downstream of Intake Facilities – Min. flow during wet season

24. Way Sabu – Existing Storage Reservoir




Page A1

A2 Water Quality Samples

No Location Colour Cond

(ms/cm)

TDS

(ppt) pH

Tem

(◦C) Remarks

1 Bandar Lampung proposed water

supply intake

Very brown.

High levels

of turbidity

0.08 0.04 7.15 26.5

Indicates high (potentially very high) turbidity, low TDS, and

moderate pH – consistent with current water quality data from

Way Sekampung.

2

Bandar Lampung proposed water

supply – irrigation feeder canal

(downstream of intake location)

Very brown.

High levels

of turbidity

0.12 0.06 7.42 26.4

Indicates high (potentially very high) turbidity, low TDS, and

moderate pH – consistent with current water quality data from

Way Sekampung.

3

Way Kuripan Intake (current

surface water supply for drinking

water in Bandar Lampung) – takes

off approximately 450 l/s

Very brown.

High levels

of turbidity

and pollution

0.06 0.03 7.73 26.3

Quality appears largely consistent with Way Sekampung, which is

what would typically be expected for a tropical rivers in Indonesia

4

Way Kuripan Water Treatment

Plant (current surface water

supply for drinking water in

Bandar Lampung) – Treated water

sample from treatments units

(steel modulated units)

Clear 0.13 0.06 7.63 27.5

Note slight increase in TDS (30mg/L -> 60 mg/L), which should

be associated with chemicals added for treatment.




Page A2

5

Batu Putih Springs (about 20km

outside of Bandar Lampung –

currently supplies 50l/s directly to

water supply without treatment)

Very clear

and

odourless.

Can be drunk

without

treatment

(according to

the

operators)

0.14 0.07 6.7 27.9

This is a very good quality water, TDS ~ 70mg/L. As expected

the water was very clear, and unless contaminated (industrial or

natural elevated concentration of metals, some cations), would be

suitable to drink without treatment. However, we note that the

pH is low, too low where concrete lined pipes may be concerned

(acceptable for plastic, generally good (but not ideal) for copper

pipes, but could cause some problems with galvanised pipes).

It is not necessarily possible to say whether this spring is

consistent with groundwater quality elsewhere in the area, as this

depends on hydrogeology. Accordingly this sample should not

necessarily be considered as representative of the groundwater

quality through the city.

6 Way Sabu Reservoir

(by River mouth)

Very clear

and

odourless

0.08 0.04 8.27 25.5

Small river about 35km to the west of Bandar Lampung. There is

a small reservoir and treatment plant that offtakes 10 l/s to an

army base

7 Way Sabu river intake (by weir) Somewhat

clear 0.08 0.04 8.29 25.8

Small river about 35km to the west of Bandar Lampung. There is

a small reservoir and treatment plant that offtakes 10 l/s to an

army base

Note: The samples taken were spot samples only and should not be considered as representative of the water quality at these sources. A more extensive sampling program should be undertaken to confirm the overall quality of the water at these sources.

Appendix B

Additional Study References




Page B1

B1 Extraction Licence

DECISION OF THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS NUMBER: 558/KPTS/M/2009

CONCERNING

THE GRANTING OF WATER UTILIZATION PERMIT OF WAY SEKAMPUNG RIVER TO DRINKING WATER REGIONAL OWNED ENTERPRISE WAY RILAU BANDAR LAMPUNG

Minister of Public Works,

Considering:

a. in the effort of increasing the supply of raw water in Bandar Lampung Municipality in accordance with the proposal from Mayor of Bandar Lampung under letter No. 690/1987/02-6/08 dated 21 August 2008 regarding Way Sekampung water utilization permit proposal, Way Sekampung River’s water utilization permit is required;

b. Based on the evaluation on supply and need of water on Way Sekampung River, water utilization permit is granted to Local Governor of Bandar Lampung Municipality to increase raw water supply.

c. Based on the above considerations under letter a and b, the granting of water utilization permit is stipulated under a Decision Letter.

In the view of:

1. Law Number 7 Year 2004 concerning Water Resources; 2. Government Regulation Number 42 Year 2008 concerning Water Resources Management; 3. Presidential Regulation Number 9 Year 2005 concerning Position, Task, Function, Authority,

Organization Structure and Work Procedures of State Ministry, as amended by Presidential Decision Number 62 Year 2005;

4. Presidential Regulation Number 10 Year 2005 concerning Organizational Unit and Duty of Echelon I in State Ministry of the Republic Of Indonesia, as amended by Presidential Regulation Number 50 Year 2008;

5. Presidential Decision Number: 187/M Year 2004 concerning Development of the Indonesian United Cabinet, as amended by Presidential Decision Number: 31/P Year 2007;

6. Regulation of the Minister of Public Works Number: 01/PRT/M/2008 concerning Organization and Work Procedures of Department of Public Works;

7. Decision of the Minister of Public Works Number: 441/KPTS/M/2009 concerning The Delegation of Authority to Director General of Water Resources to sign the Water Utilization Permit;

By taking into account: Letter of “Kepala Balai Besar Wilayah” Mesuji Sekampung River Number: PR.02.01/BBW/SMS/205 dated 29 June 2009 regarding Technical Recommendation on Raw Water Extraction from Sekampung River. To stipulate: The Granting of Water Utilization Permit of Way Sekampung River to Drinking Water Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung First: To grant water utilization from Way Sekampung River to Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung, having address at Jalan Pangerang Emir M. Noer No. 11A Bandar Lampung, under the following terms:

a. The maximum debit of water of Way Sekampung River that can be utilized is 500 (five hundred) liter/second, taken from one intake location that has been determined, equipped with a volumetric measuring devices placed on the distribution pipe next to the intake pump;

b. The amount of water allocation specified in the permit may be revised if conditions or circumstances that were made as the base of granting permit and conditions of water supply in the related water sources is experiencing a significant change compared to the condition of water availability at the time of allocation stipulation;

c. The priority of the water resources provision other than to provide the everyday basic needs of people and irrigation for people agriculture shall be based on the pattern of water resources management and water resources management plan that has been determined on each area of the river;

d. The water taking is performed by pumping; e. The position of the building does not interfere with the functions of Way Sekampung River and

the operational of heavy equipment in the maintenance of river; f. The construction of intake buildings and infrastructure on the river should not interfere with the

function of rivers and existing irrigation buildings and does not cause impacts to the environment; g. For monitoring and evaluation material, data of water collecting shall be reported regularly (every

3 (three) months) to Mesuji Sekampung River Area Office (“Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Mesuji Sekampung”) of Directorate General of Water Resources of Department of Public Works.

h. This Permit is granted for the period of 5 (five) years since the stipulation. Second: In utilizing the water from Way Sekampung River as stated under the First dictum, Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung has to meet the following provisions:

a. When PDAM does not need the water, thus the intake and utilization of water from the river must be stopped;

b. The security construction around the water intake building and flow (“alur”) around the building during the operation is the responsibility of Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung;

c. If a normalization work of the Way Sekampung River is needed, it is obliged to secure a water intake building and if there are any damages, it will be the responsibility of Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung;

d. Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung, in certain limit, is required to provide the water obtained for the benefit of the community/neighborhood;

e. Mesuji Sekampung River Area Office may at any time examine the implementation of water utilization;

f. In the event of the decreasing of the water-debit in the location of the water in certain months, Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung must comply with the water allocation plan that has been determined;

g. If the water-debit is no longer sufficient in accordance with the permit granted, then the water-debit that can be taken, will be adjusted or terminated.

Third: Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung is obliged to:

a. Comply with the provisions under this permit; b. Pay surface-water tax to the Treasury of Lampung Provincial Government, the cost of water

resources management services to the manager of the water resources and to pay other financial obligations in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;

c. Protect and preserve the continuity of the functions of water resources and water resources infrastructure;

d. Conduct control and prevention effort of water pollution; e. Remedy the environmental damage caused by activities conducted; f. Provide access for the water resources utilization from the same source of water for the everyday

basic needs of the people around the location of activities. Fourth: Water Drinking Regional Owned Enterprise Way Rilau Bandar Lampung has the right to utilize the water from Way Sekampung River in accordance with the provisions under the permit.

Fifth: The Water Utilization Permit:

a. Cannot be leased or transferred, partially or wholly to other parties; b. Is cancelled if the water use is no longer in accordance with the provisions of the permit; c. May be suspended if the provisions in the permit are not implemented and the permit will be

reinstated if the provisions in the permit have been implemented; d. May be revoked if the permit holder within the period specified in the permit does not use the

permit appropriately; e. May only be granted in accordance with the predetermined quantity while the quality of water is

not the responsibility of permit issuer; f. Applicant cannot claim any damages of any kind to license issuer if there is any discrepancy

accordance with the permit; g. Water utilization permit will be reviewed if the implementation of building/construction of water

use does not occur later than 2 (two) years since the determination of the decision. Sixth: This Decision shall take effect from the date it is promulgated.

Promulgated in Jakarta,

On 27 October 2009

On behalf of Minister of Public Works Directorate General of Water Resource

signed

Iwan Nursyirwan

Copied to:

1. Secretary General of Department of Public Works; 2. Directorate General of Water Resource of Department of Public Works; 3. Directorate General of Cipta Karya of Department of Public Works; 4. Governor of Lampung; 5. Mayor of Bandar Lampung; 6. Secretary of Directorate General of Water Resource; 7. Director of Bina PSDA; 8. Director of River, Lake and Dam; 9. Director of Irrigation; 10. Head of Mesuji Sekampung River Area Office; 11. Pertinggal.

Appendix C

Way Sekampung Water Balance




Page C1

C1 Way Sekampung Water Balance

Appendix C: Water balance of Way Sekampung

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

1-Jan-10 4956.4 0.0 280.6 22.6 43.3 65.8 280.6 214.8

2-Jan-10 4974.1 0.0 138.0 24.7 43.7 68.5 138.0 69.5

3-Jan-10 4979.4 16.3 39.7 20.0 36.0 56.0 56.0 0.0

4-Jan-10 4982.9 30.1 2.3 12.5 19.8 32.4 32.4 0.0

5-Jan-10 4972.3 30.1 23.3 20.5 32.9 53.4 53.4 0.0

6-Jan-10 4954.7 28.5 27.5 21.4 34.6 56.0 56.0 0.0

7-Jan-10 4944.0 29.0 15.7 17.3 27.5 44.8 44.8 0.0

8-Jan-10 4935.2 30.0 9.0 15.2 23.8 39.0 39.0 0.0

9-Jan-10 4929.9 9.4 50.2 21.8 37.8 59.6 59.6 0.0

10-Jan-10 4921.0 0.0 76.0 23.3 40.7 64.0 76.0 12.0

11-Jan-10 4952.9 0.0 103.4 23.6 44.5 68.1 103.4 35.4

12-Jan-10 4965.3 12.1 87.7 31.2 46.8 78.0 99.8 21.9

13-Jan-10 4970.6 13.5 47.2 24.7 36.0 60.7 60.7 0.0

14-Jan-10 4965.3 10.5 59.1 26.6 43.0 69.6 69.6 0.0

15-Jan-10 4960.0 10.9 52.7 23.9 39.6 63.5 63.5 0.0

16-Jan-10 4952.9 29.6 4.5 12.4 21.8 34.2 34.2 0.0

17-Jan-10 4949.3 19.8 71.6 32.2 56.9 89.1 91.4 2.3

18-Jan-10 4933.4 21.8 64.0 32.0 53.8 85.8 85.8 0.0

19-Jan-10 4922.8 21.3 22.0 16.7 26.6 43.2 43.2 0.0

20-Jan-10 4912.2 0.6 82.7 31.1 52.2 83.3 83.3 0.0

21-Jan-10 4928.1 23.8 19.4 16.7 26.6 43.2 43.2 0.0

22-Jan-10 4933.4 6.4 54.2 24.7 36.0 60.7 60.7 0.0

23-Jan-10 4937.0 0.0 240.5 18.5 61.5 80.0 240.5 160.5

24-Jan-10 4990.0 0.0 176.9 25.2 61.8 87.0 176.9 89.9

25-Jan-10 5014.9 11.2 76.8 28.8 56.9 85.7 88.0 2.3

26-Jan-10 5036.7 0.0 179.1 33.0 56.2 89.2 179.1 89.9

27-Jan-10 5056.6 0.0 87.2 28.0 56.9 84.9 87.2 2.3

28-Jan-10 5074.7 0.0 100.3 28.5 59.8 88.3 100.3 12.0

29-Jan-10 5094.6 0.0 87.2 28.0 56.9 84.9 87.2 2.3

30-Jan-10 5127.2 0.0 260.6 18.4 55.2 73.6 260.6 187.0

31-Jan-10 5163.5 0.0 314.6 16.7 54.1 70.7 314.6 243.9

1-Feb-10 5199.9 0.0 318.6 20.6 54.1 74.6 318.6 243.9

2-Feb-10 5235.2 0.0 173.1 26.8 56.4 83.2 173.1 89.9

3-Feb-10 5255.6 0.0 85.9 26.8 56.9 83.6 85.9 2.3

4-Feb-10 5276.0 4.2 61.1 24.2 41.2 65.3 65.3 0.0

5-Feb-10 5294.5 4.4 43.7 17.5 30.6 48.1 48.1 0.0

6-Feb-10 5335.3 0.0 74.5 26.5 48.1 74.5 74.5 0.0

7-Feb-10 5366.9 0.0 83.5 25.9 51.1 76.9 83.5 6.5

8-Feb-10 5393.3 0.0 192.4 25.2 54.4 79.6 192.4 112.9

9-Feb-10 5408.4 8.4 81.5 28.7 54.8 83.4 90.0 6.5

10-Feb-10 5425.5 18.4 19.7 14.3 23.8 38.1 38.1 0.0

11-Feb-10 5427.4 31.1 28.3 21.5 37.9 59.4 59.4 0.0

12-Feb-10 5412.2 27.3 32.1 21.5 37.9 59.4 59.4 0.0

13-Feb-10 5404.6 0.0 87.4 28.2 56.9 85.1 87.4 2.3

14-Feb-10 5452.1 0.0 221.4 28.9 57.1 86.0 221.4 135.4

15-Feb-10 5497.7 0.0 457.1 27.0 57.8 84.8 457.1 372.3

16-Feb-10 5524.3 0.0 295.7 23.2 57.7 80.9 295.7 214.8

17-Feb-10 5585.5 0.0 355.8 23.8 57.9 81.7 355.8 274.2

18-Feb-10 5686.6 0.0 220.5 26.8 58.3 85.0 220.5 135.4

19-Feb-10 5741.0 0.0 809.0 21.9 55.8 77.7 809.0 731.3

20-Feb-10 5790.3 0.0 487.1 20.7 58.5 79.2 487.1 407.8

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

21-Feb-10 5844.0 0.0 451.4 20.5 58.6 79.1 451.4 372.3

22-Feb-10 5885.7 0.0 240.3 21.9 57.9 79.9 240.3 160.5

23-Feb-10 5929.5 0.0 215.4 21.7 58.3 80.0 215.4 135.4

24-Feb-10 5963.4 0.0 266.6 20.8 58.8 79.6 266.6 187.0

25-Feb-10 6016.3 0.0 323.7 21.3 58.5 79.8 323.7 243.9

26-Feb-10 6059.0 0.0 191.2 21.4 58.9 80.3 191.2 110.9

27-Feb-10 6093.6 0.0 174.3 19.4 58.1 77.5 174.3 96.7

28-Feb-10 6142.4 0.0 84.9 20.0 58.3 78.4 84.9 6.5

1-Mar-10 6179.4 0.0 78.9 19.7 56.9 76.6 78.9 2.3

2-Mar-10 6202.3 11.7 37.7 16.1 33.3 49.4 49.4 0.0

3-Mar-10 6206.4 29.9 49.0 19.7 56.9 76.6 78.9 2.3

4-Mar-10 6204.3 29.8 42.9 19.4 53.3 72.8 72.8 0.0

5-Mar-10 6204.3 29.6 33.0 19.3 43.3 62.6 62.6 0.0

6-Mar-10 6200.2 29.9 20.4 16.1 34.2 50.3 50.3 0.0

7-Mar-10 6200.2 28.4 62.2 20.6 58.0 78.6 90.6 12.0

8-Mar-10 6237.6 0.0 113.9 20.2 58.4 78.6 113.9 35.4

9-Mar-10 6270.9 0.0 68.9 21.9 47.0 68.9 68.9 0.0

10-Mar-10 6291.7 0.0 223.4 21.5 66.6 88.0 223.4 135.4

11-Mar-10 6331.2 0.0 119.1 21.2 62.6 83.7 119.1 35.4

12-Mar-10 6354.1 0.0 72.5 20.0 52.4 72.5 72.5 0.0

13-Mar-10 6389.9 0.0 54.9 16.8 38.1 54.9 54.9 0.0

14-Mar-10 6404.8 10.2 35.4 14.6 31.1 45.6 45.6 0.0

15-Mar-10 6411.2 16.1 48.4 18.2 46.2 64.4 64.4 0.0

16-Mar-10 6421.8 15.5 52.8 18.8 49.4 68.2 68.2 0.0

17-Mar-10 6460.1 0.0 79.2 20.0 56.9 76.9 79.2 2.3

18-Mar-10 6500.5 0.0 247.2 21.7 65.0 86.7 247.2 160.5

19-Mar-10 6540.9 0.0 320.3 21.4 55.0 76.4 320.3 243.9

20-Mar-10 6579.2 0.0 187.5 21.2 54.4 75.6 187.5 111.9

21-Mar-10 6635.6 0.0 97.7 20.9 54.9 75.8 97.7 21.9

22-Mar-10 6668.2 0.0 54.9 16.8 38.1 54.9 54.9 0.0

23-Mar-10 6683.5 15.9 20.2 12.8 23.3 36.2 36.2 0.0

24-Mar-10 6687.8 26.9 20.5 14.4 33.0 47.4 47.4 0.0

25-Mar-10 6685.6 30.1 34.3 18.2 46.2 64.4 64.4 0.0

26-Mar-10 6679.1 28.5 208.2 20.2 56.1 76.2 236.7 160.5

27-Mar-10 6742.2 0.0 319.8 20.8 55.0 75.8 319.8 243.9

28-Mar-10 6787.8 0.0 289.7 20.6 54.3 74.9 289.7 214.8

29-Mar-10 6820.8 0.0 125.5 19.5 54.5 74.0 125.5 51.5

30-Mar-10 6894.2 0.0 481.4 18.9 54.6 73.6 481.4 407.9

31-Mar-10 6945.2 0.0 186.0 19.7 54.4 74.1 186.0 111.9

1-Apr-10 7011.9 0.0 601.5 25.5 54.8 80.3 601.5 521.2

2-Apr-10 7079.7 0.0 296.5 27.5 54.3 81.7 296.5 214.8

3-Apr-10 7127.4 0.0 193.4 27.1 54.4 81.5 193.4 111.9

4-Apr-10 7163.7 0.0 82.1 26.3 53.5 79.8 82.1 2.3

5-Apr-10 7195.5 0.0 49.0 18.2 30.8 49.0 49.0 0.0

6-Apr-10 7213.7 12.2 36.9 18.2 30.9 49.1 49.1 0.0

7-Apr-10 7234.1 15.2 48.6 21.0 42.8 63.8 63.8 0.0

8-Apr-10 7245.4 15.4 22.1 13.9 23.5 37.5 37.5 0.0

9-Apr-10 7250.0 26.4 21.3 16.8 30.9 47.7 47.7 0.0

10-Apr-10 7243.2 30.2 17.6 16.8 30.9 47.7 47.7 0.0

11-Apr-10 7250.0 23.1 47.7 22.7 48.1 70.8 70.8 0.0

12-Apr-10 7252.3 27.1 49.2 26.8 49.5 76.3 76.3 0.0

13-Apr-10 7247.7 30.9 33.9 22.6 42.1 64.7 64.7 0.0

14-Apr-10 7268.5 0.0 74.4 26.3 48.1 74.4 74.4 0.0

15-Apr-10 7303.3 0.0 88.5 25.0 51.5 76.5 88.5 12.0

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

16-Apr-10 7324.2 0.0 42.2 15.0 27.3 42.2 42.2 0.0

17-Apr-10 7328.8 25.6 11.9 13.9 23.6 37.5 37.5 0.0

18-Apr-10 7317.2 30.2 17.5 16.8 30.9 47.7 47.7 0.0

19-Apr-10 7305.6 30.6 17.1 16.8 30.9 47.7 47.7 0.0

20-Apr-10 7294.0 30.9 11.3 15.0 27.3 42.2 42.2 0.0

21-Apr-10 7282.4 30.7 19.0 17.3 32.5 49.7 49.7 0.0

22-Apr-10 7270.8 30.3 6.6 13.3 23.6 36.9 36.9 0.0

23-Apr-10 7256.9 30.8 11.4 15.0 27.3 42.2 42.2 0.0

24-Apr-10 7245.4 31.5 10.7 15.0 27.3 42.2 42.2 0.0

25-Apr-10 7231.8 30.4 14.2 15.4 29.1 44.6 44.6 0.0

26-Apr-10 7215.9 30.9 6.1 13.3 23.6 36.9 36.9 0.0

27-Apr-10 7197.8 31.4 5.5 13.3 23.6 36.9 36.9 0.0

28-Apr-10 7181.9 30.9 1.2 11.9 20.2 32.1 32.1 0.0

29-Apr-10 7166.0 31.8 0.3 11.9 20.2 32.1 32.1 0.0

30-Apr-10 7147.8 31.3 2.8 12.4 21.8 34.2 34.2 0.0

1-May-10 7129.7 31.0 5.9 13.3 23.6 36.9 36.9 0.0

2-May-10 7120.6 32.1 10.1 15.0 27.2 42.2 42.2 0.0

3-May-10 7102.4 31.6 23.0 21.7 32.9 54.6 54.6 0.0

4-May-10 7097.9 25.5 22.9 19.2 29.3 48.4 48.4 0.0

5-May-10 7091.1 24.6 8.9 13.6 20.0 33.6 33.6 0.0

6-May-10 7072.9 31.3 13.1 17.2 27.2 44.4 44.4 0.0

7-May-10 7059.3 30.3 7.2 14.9 22.7 37.5 37.5 0.0

8-May-10 7041.2 30.5 10.6 16.1 25.1 41.1 41.1 0.0

9-May-10 7023.0 30.5 10.7 16.1 25.1 41.1 41.1 0.0

10-May-10 7020.8 30.8 13.6 17.2 27.2 44.4 44.4 0.0

11-May-10 7011.9 26.3 11.2 14.9 22.7 37.5 37.5 0.0

12-May-10 7000.8 30.5 7.1 14.9 22.7 37.5 37.5 0.0

13-May-10 6985.2 30.4 3.2 13.6 20.0 33.6 33.6 0.0

14-May-10 6969.7 30.9 2.6 13.6 20.0 33.6 33.6 0.0

15-May-10 6949.7 30.7 2.8 13.6 20.0 33.6 33.6 0.0

16-May-10 6934.1 30.6 6.9 14.9 22.7 37.5 37.5 0.0

17-May-10 6920.8 30.6 0.7 12.9 18.5 31.4 31.4 0.0

18-May-10 6900.8 30.7 2.9 13.6 20.0 33.6 33.6 0.0

19-May-10 6887.5 30.5 10.6 16.1 25.1 41.1 41.1 0.0

20-May-10 6874.2 28.9 12.5 15.6 25.8 41.4 41.4 0.0

21-May-10 6885.3 5.3 36.1 15.6 25.8 41.4 41.4 0.0

22-May-10 6903.0 0.0 25.5 10.0 15.5 25.5 25.5 0.0

23-May-10 6918.6 19.3 -5.3 6.3 7.7 14.0 14.0 0.0

24-May-10 6911.9 17.6 -7.9 4.2 5.5 9.7 9.7 0.0

25-May-10 6896.4 26.8 -1.3 10.0 15.5 25.5 25.5 0.0

26-May-10 6878.6 29.4 9.7 13.8 25.3 39.1 39.1 0.0

27-May-10 6887.5 9.7 29.2 13.1 25.8 38.9 38.9 0.0

28-May-10 6891.9 19.3 97.0 13.5 33.0 46.5 116.2 69.7

29-May-10 6914.1 14.1 26.4 13.6 26.9 40.5 40.5 0.0

30-May-10 6914.1 15.1 22.8 13.3 24.6 37.9 37.9 0.0

31-May-10 6911.9 15.0 19.7 12.4 22.3 34.7 34.7 0.0

1-Jun-10 6907.5 15.1 24.2 13.8 25.5 39.2 39.2 0.0

2-Jun-10 6909.7 15.3 24.6 13.7 26.2 40.0 40.0 0.0

3-Jun-10 6905.3 15.2 20.7 12.7 23.1 35.9 35.9 0.0

4-Jun-10 6900.8 15.2 21.8 13.1 23.9 37.0 37.0 0.0

5-Jun-10 6900.8 15.3 19.4 12.4 22.3 34.7 34.7 0.0

6-Jun-10 6896.4 15.1 17.0 11.6 20.5 32.1 32.1 0.0

7-Jun-10 6894.2 14.8 26.4 13.8 27.5 41.2 41.2 0.0

8-Jun-10 6894.2 15.2 17.0 11.6 20.5 32.1 32.1 0.0

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

9-Jun-10 6898.6 8.8 12.0 8.1 12.7 20.9 20.9 0.0

10-Jun-10 6923.0 15.4 28.6 12.5 31.5 44.0 44.0 0.0

11-Jun-10 6923.0 15.4 29.9 13.2 32.1 45.3 45.3 0.0

12-Jun-10 6920.8 15.4 25.9 13.8 27.5 41.2 41.2 0.0

13-Jun-10 6920.8 14.8 14.6 10.8 18.5 29.4 29.4 0.0

14-Jun-10 6918.6 23.1 2.4 10.0 15.5 25.5 25.5 0.0

15-Jun-10 6903.0 28.9 -3.4 10.0 15.5 25.5 25.5 0.0

16-Jun-10 6889.7 25.5 55.6 13.7 32.0 45.8 81.1 35.4

17-Jun-10 6900.8 13.2 19.0 11.6 20.5 32.1 32.1 0.0

18-Jun-10 6894.2 9.9 14.1 9.5 14.5 24.0 24.0 0.0

19-Jun-10 6883.0 26.2 5.9 11.6 20.5 32.1 32.1 0.0

20-Jun-10 6871.9 24.6 72.8 13.4 32.5 45.9 97.3 51.5

21-Jun-10 6889.7 0.0 157.5 13.3 32.3 45.6 157.5 111.9

22-Jun-10 6905.3 0.0 132.3 10.4 31.9 42.3 132.3 89.9

23-Jun-10 6918.6 0.0 59.2 10.5 25.8 36.3 59.2 22.9

24-Jun-10 6929.7 0.0 32.8 10.7 22.0 32.8 32.8 0.0

25-Jun-10 6943.0 0.0 34.7 10.7 24.0 34.7 34.7 0.0

26-Jun-10 6960.8 0.0 31.3 8.0 23.3 31.3 31.3 0.0

27-Jun-10 6971.9 0.0 24.2 7.7 16.5 24.2 24.2 0.0

28-Jun-10 6985.2 0.0 22.7 7.3 15.4 22.7 22.7 0.0

29-Jun-10 6996.3 0.0 22.7 7.3 15.4 22.7 22.7 0.0

30-Jun-10 7009.7 0.0 21.6 7.2 14.4 21.6 21.6 0.0

1-Jul-10 7025.3 0.4 13.5 5.7 8.2 13.9 13.9 0.0

2-Jul-10 7034.4 15.1 14.3 7.2 22.2 29.4 29.4 0.0

3-Jul-10 7041.2 14.8 103.8 7.0 21.7 28.7 118.6 89.9

4-Jul-10 7041.2 15.0 74.3 6.9 12.7 19.6 89.3 69.7

5-Jul-10 7038.9 15.4 39.1 6.8 12.4 19.1 54.5 35.4

6-Jul-10 7034.4 15.2 17.2 7.7 12.7 20.4 32.5 12.0

7-Jul-10 7032.1 15.0 12.0 7.5 12.9 20.4 27.0 6.5

8-Jul-10 7027.5 15.0 4.1 7.2 12.0 19.2 19.2 0.0

9-Jul-10 7034.4 15.4 4.9 7.3 12.9 20.3 20.3 0.0

10-Jul-10 7029.8 15.1 4.5 7.3 12.3 19.5 19.5 0.0

11-Jul-10 7027.5 15.2 5.1 7.3 12.9 20.3 20.3 0.0

12-Jul-10 7023.0 15.2 5.1 7.3 12.9 20.3 20.3 0.0

13-Jul-10 7018.6 15.0 7.6 7.5 12.7 20.2 22.5 2.3

14-Jul-10 7014.1 15.3 5.1 7.7 12.7 20.4 20.4 0.0

15-Jul-10 7009.7 14.9 12.0 2.2 12.7 15.0 27.0 12.0

16-Jul-10 7007.5 15.2 55.6 6.8 12.5 19.3 70.7 51.5

17-Jul-10 7023.0 14.4 164.9 6.3 12.5 18.8 179.3 160.5

18-Jul-10 7034.4 0.0 130.7 6.6 12.2 18.8 130.7 111.9

19-Jul-10 7063.9 0.0 234.5 6.9 12.9 19.8 234.5 214.7

20-Jul-10 7079.7 0.0 179.8 6.7 12.5 19.3 179.8 160.5

21-Jul-10 7093.4 0.0 89.3 6.9 12.7 19.6 89.3 69.7

22-Jul-10 7107.0 0.0 70.8 6.8 12.5 19.4 70.8 51.5

23-Jul-10 7116.1 0.0 21.1 6.4 12.4 18.8 21.1 2.3

24-Jul-10 7125.1 0.0 18.8 6.4 12.4 18.8 18.8 0.0

25-Jul-10 7136.5 0.0 12.1 5.4 6.7 12.1 12.1 0.0

26-Jul-10 7150.1 0.0 7.5 3.4 4.1 7.5 7.5 0.0

27-Jul-10 7161.5 14.8 106.0 6.6 12.8 19.4 120.8 101.4

28-Jul-10 7200.0 0.0 656.8 4.1 8.4 12.5 656.8 644.3

29-Jul-10 7211.4 0.0 230.3 6.2 9.3 15.5 230.3 214.8

30-Jul-10 7222.7 0.0 150.2 5.4 9.4 14.8 150.2 135.4

31-Jul-10 7245.4 0.0 84.4 5.2 9.5 14.7 84.4 69.7

1-Aug-10 7256.9 0.0 50.1 5.1 9.7 14.7 50.1 35.4

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

2-Aug-10 7268.5 0.0 50.1 5.1 9.7 14.7 50.1 35.4

3-Aug-10 7277.8 0.0 27.4 5.3 1.2 6.4 27.4 21.0

4-Aug-10 7291.7 0.0 17.3 5.1 9.9 15.0 17.3 2.3

5-Aug-10 7301.0 0.0 15.1 5.6 9.6 15.1 15.1 0.0

6-Aug-10 7310.2 0.0 13.8 5.0 8.7 13.8 13.8 0.0

7-Aug-10 7324.2 0.0 14.5 5.3 9.2 14.5 14.5 0.0

8-Aug-10 7347.3 0.0 15.1 5.4 9.7 15.1 15.1 0.0

9-Aug-10 7375.2 0.0 21.3 5.5 9.3 14.8 21.3 6.5

10-Aug-10 7389.1 0.0 85.5 5.8 9.9 15.8 85.5 69.7

11-Aug-10 7400.7 0.0 50.7 5.7 9.7 15.4 50.7 35.4

12-Aug-10 7435.4 0.0 50.7 5.7 9.7 15.4 50.7 35.4

13-Aug-10 7451.7 0.0 103.3 3.7 9.6 13.3 103.3 89.9

14-Aug-10 7470.2 0.0 82.9 3.7 9.5 13.2 82.9 69.7

15-Aug-10 7491.3 0.0 119.5 3.5 4.1 7.6 119.5 111.9

16-Aug-10 7510.2 0.0 119.5 3.5 4.1 7.6 119.5 111.9

17-Aug-10 7526.8 0.0 77.5 3.5 4.0 7.4 77.5 70.1

18-Aug-10 7552.8 0.0 43.2 3.6 4.2 7.8 43.2 35.4

19-Aug-10 7578.9 0.0 165.2 2.4 2.3 4.8 165.2 160.5

20-Aug-10 7609.6 0.0 94.5 2.4 2.3 4.6 94.5 89.9

21-Aug-10 7631.0 0.0 116.5 2.4 2.3 4.7 116.5 111.9

22-Aug-10 7647.5 0.0 116.5 2.4 2.3 4.7 116.5 111.9

23-Aug-10 7690.1 0.0 343.4 2.6 2.5 5.0 343.4 338.3

24-Aug-10 7711.4 0.0 165.2 2.4 2.3 4.8 165.2 160.5

25-Aug-10 7733.1 0.0 94.5 2.2 2.3 4.5 94.5 90.1

26-Aug-10 7750.0 0.0 74.3 2.3 2.2 4.6 74.3 69.7

27-Aug-10 7764.5 0.0 114.3 2.4 0.0 2.4 114.3 111.9

28-Aug-10 7788.6 0.0 217.3 2.5 0.0 2.5 217.3 214.8

29-Aug-10 7803.2 0.0 162.9 2.4 0.0 2.4 162.9 160.5

30-Aug-10 7817.7 0.0 114.3 2.4 0.0 2.4 114.3 111.9

31-Aug-10 7832.2 0.0 89.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

1-Sep-10 7846.7 0.0 89.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

2-Sep-10 7861.2 0.0 69.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

3-Sep-10 7873.2 0.0 69.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

4-Sep-10 7890.2 0.0 160.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 160.5

5-Sep-10 7907.1 0.0 89.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

6-Sep-10 7919.2 0.0 51.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 51.5

7-Sep-10 7933.7 0.0 51.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 51.5

8-Sep-10 7953.0 0.0 111.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.9 111.9

9-Sep-10 7970.1 0.8 111.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.9 111.9

10-Sep-10 7987.4 3.8 65.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

11-Sep-10 7997.3 6.0 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

12-Sep-10 8014.5 10.7 40.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 51.5

13-Sep-10 8029.4 15.4 36.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 51.5

14-Sep-10 8036.8 18.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.7 60.7

15-Sep-10 8039.2 18.8 51.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.9 69.9

16-Sep-10 8036.8 18.0 882.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 899.9 899.9

17-Sep-10 8044.2 20.6 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.9 111.9

18-Sep-10 8041.7 19.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

19-Sep-10 8039.2 18.8 50.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

20-Sep-10 8036.8 18.0 93.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.9 111.9

21-Sep-10 8041.7 19.7 70.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

22-Sep-10 8054.0 24.4 190.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.8 214.8

23-Sep-10 8063.9 28.3 310.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 338.3 338.3

24-Sep-10 8071.3 31.4 212.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 243.9 243.9

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

25-Sep-10 8078.7 34.6 180.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.8 214.8

26-Sep-10 8076.2 33.5 127.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 160.5

27-Sep-10 8076.2 33.5 181.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.8 214.8

28-Sep-10 8086.1 37.9 300.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 338.3 338.3

29-Sep-10 8083.6 36.8 237.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 274.2 274.2

30-Sep-10 8076.2 33.5 181.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.8 214.8

1-Oct-10 8068.8 30.4 156.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.0 187.0

2-Oct-10 8066.4 29.3 131.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 160.5

3-Oct-10 8061.4 27.3 159.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.0 187.0

4-Oct-10 8059.0 26.3 134.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 160.5

5-Oct-10 8061.4 27.3 73.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.4 100.4

6-Oct-10 8059.0 26.3 160.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.0 187.0

7-Oct-10 8059.0 26.3 188.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.8 214.8

8-Oct-10 8056.5 25.3 135.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 160.5

9-Oct-10 8056.5 25.3 110.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 135.4

10-Oct-10 8054.0 24.4 111.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 135.4

11-Oct-10 8049.1 22.5 67.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

12-Oct-10 8044.2 20.6 69.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

13-Oct-10 8039.2 18.8 71.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

14-Oct-10 8049.1 22.5 113.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 135.4

15-Oct-10 8044.2 20.6 69.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

16-Oct-10 8039.2 18.8 71.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

17-Oct-10 8041.7 19.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

18-Oct-10 8041.7 19.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

19-Oct-10 8036.8 18.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 51.5

20-Oct-10 8034.3 17.1 34.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 51.5

21-Oct-10 8044.2 20.6 49.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

22-Oct-10 8041.7 19.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

23-Oct-10 8039.2 18.8 71.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

24-Oct-10 8041.7 19.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

25-Oct-10 8044.2 20.6 49.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 69.7

26-Oct-10 8041.7 19.7 70.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

27-Oct-10 8039.2 18.8 71.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.9 89.9

28-Oct-10 8056.5 25.3 110.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 135.4

29-Oct-10 8051.6 34.8 100.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 135.4

30-Oct-10 8054.0 35.9 151.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.0 187.0

31-Oct-10 8044.2 32.8 182.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.8 214.8

1-Nov-10 8066.4 41.2 135.9 7.1 9.5 16.7 177.2 160.5

2-Nov-10 8063.9 40.0 126.2 5.8 0.0 5.8 166.2 160.5

3-Nov-10 8056.5 37.0 80.5 5.7 0.0 5.7 117.5 111.9

4-Nov-10 8054.0 36.2 102.9 3.6 0.0 3.6 139.0 135.4

5-Nov-10 8049.1 33.8 83.2 5.6 0.0 5.6 117.0 111.4

6-Nov-10 8044.2 31.6 85.2 4.9 0.0 4.9 116.8 111.9

7-Nov-10 8044.2 20.6 96.2 4.9 0.0 4.9 116.8 111.9

8-Nov-10 8056.5 37.7 210.7 4.5 0.0 4.5 248.4 243.9

9-Nov-10 8054.0 36.1 129.1 4.7 0.0 4.7 165.2 160.5

10-Nov-10 8046.6 33.3 83.2 4.6 0.0 4.6 116.5 111.9

11-Nov-10 8044.2 20.6 75.9 6.5 0.0 6.5 96.5 89.9

12-Nov-10 8049.1 22.5 74.0 6.5 0.0 6.5 96.5 89.9

13-Nov-10 8086.1 49.3 26.9 6.5 0.0 6.5 76.2 69.7

14-Nov-10 8083.6 55.7 224.6 6.0 0.0 6.0 280.2 274.2

15-Nov-10 8073.8 51.2 86.1 12.4 0.0 12.4 137.3 124.9

16-Nov-10 8066.4 43.3 92.1 9.8 13.8 23.6 135.5 111.9

17-Nov-10 8071.3 43.5 224.0 9.8 13.8 23.6 267.5 243.9

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

18-Nov-10 8071.3 43.4 254.6 9.9 14.0 23.9 298.1 274.2

19-Nov-10 8063.9 40.5 120.4 9.9 15.6 25.5 160.9 135.4

20-Nov-10 8059.0 37.5 61.4 10.9 18.3 29.1 98.8 69.7

21-Nov-10 8054.0 36.5 62.4 10.9 18.3 29.1 98.8 69.7

22-Nov-10 8049.1 33.8 64.7 10.6 18.6 29.1 98.6 69.4

23-Nov-10 8044.2 32.6 -1.1 10.5 18.1 28.6 31.5 2.9

24-Nov-10 8049.1 22.5 7.7 12.5 17.7 30.2 30.2 0.0

25-Nov-10 8061.4 39.2 154.5 14.0 19.2 33.2 193.7 160.5

26-Nov-10 8066.4 42.5 125.8 13.8 19.0 32.8 168.2 135.4

27-Nov-10 8071.3 45.2 230.3 12.1 19.4 31.5 275.5 243.9

28-Nov-10 8066.4 42.6 124.8 12.5 19.5 32.0 167.4 135.4

29-Nov-10 8059.0 39.6 62.3 12.5 19.7 32.2 101.9 69.7

30-Nov-10 8054.0 37.3 6.8 12.7 19.4 32.1 44.1 12.0

1-Dec-10 8049.1 39.8 -5.5 12.4 19.6 32.0 34.3 2.3

2-Dec-10 8049.1 41.0 11.7 13.5 27.2 40.7 52.7 12.0

3-Dec-10 8059.0 43.9 17.3 13.5 35.7 49.2 61.2 12.0

4-Dec-10 8056.5 51.2 309.5 13.5 41.0 54.5 360.8 306.3

5-Dec-10 8063.9 52.2 410.0 13.7 40.7 54.4 462.2 407.8

6-Dec-10 8054.0 50.1 190.7 13.2 40.6 53.9 240.8 187.0

7-Dec-10 8071.3 58.6 339.5 13.4 45.4 58.8 398.1 339.3

8-Dec-10 8061.4 57.7 136.9 13.8 45.3 59.1 194.6 135.4

9-Dec-10 8049.1 51.4 43.7 14.6 45.1 59.7 95.1 35.4

10-Dec-10 8044.2 46.2 12.5 14.6 44.1 58.7 58.7 0.0

11-Dec-10 8039.2 47.1 4.2 12.9 38.5 51.3 51.3 0.0

12-Dec-10 8039.2 18.8 30.7 12.3 37.2 49.5 49.5 0.0

13-Dec-10 8036.8 32.4 12.4 1.5 33.3 34.8 44.8 10.0

14-Dec-10 8039.2 18.8 13.2 10.3 21.7 32.0 32.0 0.0

15-Dec-10 8024.4 35.4 14.2 14.6 35.0 49.5 49.5 0.0

16-Dec-10 8009.6 37.2 14.3 20.6 20.6 41.2 51.5 10.3

17-Dec-10 7982.5 33.6 5.2 19.4 19.4 38.8 38.8 0.0

18-Dec-10 7970.1 30.8 4.2 17.5 17.5 35.0 35.0 0.0

19-Dec-10 7950.6 31.1 5.3 18.2 18.2 36.3 36.3 0.0

20-Dec-10 7931.3 31.8 0.4 16.1 16.1 32.2 32.2 0.0

21-Dec-10 7914.3 30.8 -4.4 10.3 16.1 26.4 26.4 0.0

22-Dec-10 7897.4 30.1 -0.2 16.1 13.8 29.9 29.9 0.0

23-Dec-10 7882.9 31.6 9.0 13.8 26.8 40.5 40.5 0.0

24-Dec-10 7863.6 31.1 14.6 11.5 34.2 45.7 45.7 0.0

25-Dec-10 7841.8 31.3 22.0 16.1 37.1 53.2 53.2 0.0

26-Dec-10 7839.4 30.4 35.4 16.8 49.0 65.8 65.8 0.0

27-Dec-10 7824.9 32.7 40.2 22.8 13.7 36.6 72.9 36.3

28-Dec-10 7810.4 29.7 11.5 18.7 22.5 41.2 41.2 0.0

29-Dec-10 7793.5 31.2 17.1 15.7 32.6 48.3 48.3 0.0

30-Dec-10 7774.1 30.1 22.1 16.5 35.7 52.1 52.1 0.0

31-Dec-10 7752.4 31.3 13.3 13.8 30.9 44.7 44.7 0.0

1-Jan-11 7733.1 30.7 14.0 13.8 30.9 44.7 44.7 0.0

2-Jan-11 7713.8 31.5 13.2 13.8 30.9 44.7 44.7 0.0

3-Jan-11 7694.9 31.5 18.8 16.1 34.2 50.3 50.3 0.0

4-Jan-11 7673.6 31.5 8.9 13.1 27.3 40.3 40.3 0.0

5-Jan-11 7652.3 31.5 11.1 13.3 29.1 42.5 42.6 0.1

6-Jan-11 7649.9 31.1 35.5 19.4 47.2 66.6 66.6 0.0

7-Jan-11 7638.1 29.6 110.5 37.3 67.6 104.8 140.2 35.4

8-Jan-11 7626.2 31.4 97.6 40.1 67.0 107.1 129.0 21.9

9-Jan-11 7607.3 31.3 72.3 39.1 61.2 100.3 103.6 3.3

10-Jan-11 7619.1 31.1 354.8 40.8 70.9 111.6 385.8 274.2

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

11-Jan-11 7635.7 1.0 319.7 38.9 67.1 106.0 320.7 214.8

12-Jan-11 7647.5 0.0 102.6 39.1 61.2 100.3 102.6 2.3

13-Jan-11 7647.5 30.0 5.9 12.4 23.5 35.9 35.9 0.0

14-Jan-11 7631.0 30.2 42.4 29.1 43.4 72.6 72.6 0.0

15-Jan-11 7612.0 30.5 16.0 15.4 31.1 46.4 46.4 0.0

16-Jan-11 7590.7 31.0 10.8 14.6 27.2 41.8 41.8 0.0

17-Jan-11 7569.4 31.1 12.7 15.0 28.8 43.8 43.8 0.0

18-Jan-11 7552.8 31.3 15.1 15.4 31.1 46.4 46.4 0.0

19-Jan-11 7531.5 31.0 12.8 15.0 28.8 43.8 43.8 0.0

20-Jan-11 7514.9 31.1 12.7 15.0 28.8 43.8 43.8 0.0

21-Jan-11 7493.6 31.1 9.2 13.1 27.2 40.3 40.3 0.0

22-Jan-11 7488.9 29.7 12.6 13.4 28.8 42.3 42.3 0.0

23-Jan-11 7479.5 29.5 42.6 28.2 43.9 72.1 72.1 0.0

24-Jan-11 7460.9 30.7 18.7 16.1 33.3 49.4 49.4 0.0

25-Jan-11 7447.0 30.8 56.3 32.2 54.9 87.1 87.1 0.0

26-Jan-11 7442.4 30.3 147.3 37.0 70.9 107.8 177.6 69.7

27-Jan-11 7437.8 28.7 265.0 35.3 71.5 106.7 293.7 187.0

28-Jan-11 7449.3 0.0 196.1 35.5 70.6 106.2 196.1 89.9

29-Jan-11 7463.3 0.0 268.4 36.2 71.7 107.9 268.4 160.5

30-Jan-11 7486.5 0.0 305.5 35.7 55.0 90.7 305.5 214.8

31-Jan-11 7500.7 13.7 81.9 35.0 58.3 93.3 95.6 2.3

1-Feb-11 7500.7 26.1 38.5 26.5 38.1 64.6 64.6 0.0

2-Feb-11 7486.5 26.9 45.2 28.1 44.1 72.2 72.2 0.0

3-Feb-11 7484.2 29.6 37.3 27.3 39.6 66.9 66.9 0.0

4-Feb-11 7488.9 30.3 164.7 36.3 68.7 105.0 194.9 89.9

5-Feb-11 7479.5 31.0 80.8 35.7 64.1 99.8 111.8 12.0

6-Feb-11 7465.6 31.6 137.2 31.8 67.3 99.0 168.8 69.7

7-Feb-11 7449.3 30.3 64.2 31.8 60.4 92.2 94.5 2.3

8-Feb-11 7435.4 30.2 41.2 28.1 43.4 71.5 71.5 0.0

9-Feb-11 7416.9 29.9 47.2 29.5 47.6 77.1 77.1 0.0

10-Feb-11 7412.3 21.0 42.5 26.6 36.9 63.5 63.5 0.0

11-Feb-11 7433.1 18.5 239.9 30.2 67.7 97.9 258.4 160.5

12-Feb-11 7437.8 18.8 154.0 35.0 67.3 102.3 172.9 70.5

13-Feb-11 7437.8 18.7 105.4 35.0 67.0 102.0 124.1 22.1

14-Feb-11 7437.8 19.4 45.2 26.5 38.1 64.6 64.6 0.0

15-Feb-11 7433.1 27.4 120.9 26.8 31.6 58.4 148.3 89.9

16-Feb-11 7423.8 30.2 118.1 26.8 31.6 58.4 148.3 89.9

17-Feb-11 7416.9 31.1 222.3 33.0 37.5 70.5 253.5 183.0

18-Feb-11 7403.0 30.9 156.4 35.5 61.7 97.2 187.2 90.0

19-Feb-11 7400.7 19.4 74.6 33.4 58.3 91.7 94.0 2.3

20-Feb-11 7407.6 15.2 56.3 28.1 43.4 71.5 71.5 0.0

21-Feb-11 7405.3 15.7 52.8 27.3 41.2 68.5 68.5 0.0

22-Feb-11 7405.3 15.5 27.6 18.5 24.6 43.1 43.1 0.0

23-Feb-11 7389.1 29.8 30.1 24.9 35.0 59.9 59.9 0.0

24-Feb-11 7370.5 30.4 26.4 24.1 32.7 56.8 56.8 0.0

25-Feb-11 7352.0 30.7 16.6 20.4 26.9 47.3 47.3 0.0

26-Feb-11 7335.7 31.6 22.7 23.2 31.1 54.3 54.3 0.0

27-Feb-11 7321.8 30.1 35.5 26.5 39.1 65.6 65.6 0.0

28-Feb-11 7307.9 31.0 83.5 34.2 59.3 93.5 114.6 21.1

1-Mar-11 7291.7 30.8 23.5 23.2 31.1 54.3 54.3 0.0

2-Mar-11 7277.8 30.6 16.6 20.4 26.9 47.3 47.3 0.0

3-Mar-11 7256.9 30.8 16.5 20.4 26.9 47.3 47.3 0.0

4-Mar-11 7243.2 30.5 20.8 22.3 29.1 51.4 51.4 0.0

5-Mar-11 7227.3 30.1 21.2 22.3 29.1 51.4 51.4 0.0

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

6-Mar-11 7209.1 30.7 23.6 23.2 31.1 54.3 54.3 0.0

7-Mar-11 7193.2 31.1 16.2 20.4 26.9 47.3 47.3 0.0

8-Mar-11 7170.5 29.5 27.6 24.1 33.0 57.0 57.0 0.0

9-Mar-11 7152.4 30.7 23.6 23.2 31.1 54.3 54.3 0.0

10-Mar-11 7143.3 30.8 119.5 30.4 49.7 80.1 150.3 70.2

11-Mar-11 7134.2 31.3 50.5 30.0 49.4 79.4 81.7 2.3

12-Mar-11 7113.8 30.5 45.7 29.0 47.2 76.2 76.2 0.0

13-Mar-11 7097.9 28.9 29.9 24.0 34.7 58.8 58.8 0.0

14-Mar-11 7088.8 30.2 137.6 30.4 47.3 77.8 167.7 89.9

15-Mar-11 7100.2 0.0 76.5 30.4 46.1 76.5 76.5 0.0

16-Mar-11 7109.3 0.0 57.0 24.1 33.0 57.0 57.0 0.0

17-Mar-11 7118.3 0.0 38.5 14.9 23.6 38.5 38.5 0.0

18-Mar-11 7138.8 0.0 38.5 14.9 23.6 38.5 38.5 0.0

19-Mar-11 7159.2 12.6 23.5 14.2 21.9 36.1 36.1 0.0

20-Mar-11 7163.7 15.1 258.1 18.1 40.3 58.5 273.3 214.8

21-Mar-11 7170.5 15.6 47.4 18.7 42.0 60.7 63.0 2.3

22-Mar-11 7166.0 15.4 31.0 16.8 29.6 46.4 46.4 0.0

23-Mar-11 7172.8 15.2 34.0 17.3 31.9 49.2 49.2 0.0

24-Mar-11 7170.5 15.5 27.7 16.1 27.2 43.2 43.2 0.0

25-Mar-11 7168.3 13.8 29.4 16.1 27.2 43.2 43.2 0.0

26-Mar-11 7163.7 15.7 22.4 14.9 23.3 38.2 38.2 0.0

27-Mar-11 7179.6 15.4 96.3 16.6 25.4 42.0 111.7 69.7

28-Mar-11 7177.3 15.5 33.1 16.2 25.8 42.0 48.6 6.5

29-Mar-11 7172.8 15.4 21.9 15.4 22.0 37.3 37.3 0.0

30-Mar-11 7168.3 15.3 22.0 15.4 22.0 37.3 37.3 0.0

31-Mar-11 7166.0 15.0 23.2 15.9 22.3 38.2 38.2 0.0

1-Apr-11 7163.7 15.5 23.2 15.5 23.1 38.7 38.7 0.0

2-Apr-11 7159.2 16.0 22.6 15.5 23.1 38.7 38.7 0.0

3-Apr-11 7156.9 13.5 19.5 13.6 19.4 33.0 33.0 0.0

4-Apr-11 7150.1 15.4 21.2 14.9 21.7 36.6 36.6 0.0

5-Apr-11 7147.8 29.1 33.8 16.5 34.4 50.9 62.9 12.0

6-Apr-11 7129.7 30.5 35.0 22.7 42.8 65.5 65.5 0.0

7-Apr-11 7127.4 30.8 17.0 18.2 29.6 47.8 47.8 0.0

8-Apr-11 7129.7 30.6 87.9 22.4 44.6 67.0 118.5 51.5

9-Apr-11 7127.4 29.5 208.0 22.2 54.8 77.0 237.5 160.5

10-Apr-11 7141.0 0.0 60.9 20.1 40.8 60.9 60.9 0.0

11-Apr-11 7159.2 0.0 70.6 21.5 49.1 70.6 70.6 0.0

12-Apr-11 7154.6 31.6 6.9 14.9 23.6 38.5 38.5 0.0

13-Apr-11 7147.8 30.1 26.0 20.1 36.0 56.1 56.1 0.0

14-Apr-11 7141.0 30.8 17.8 18.2 30.4 48.6 48.6 0.0

15-Apr-11 7141.0 30.0 60.7 28.8 40.1 68.9 90.8 21.9

16-Apr-11 7129.7 28.4 37.2 26.8 38.9 65.7 65.7 0.0

17-Apr-11 7116.1 28.9 19.7 18.2 30.4 48.6 48.6 0.0

18-Apr-11 7100.2 30.6 18.0 18.2 30.4 48.6 48.6 0.0

19-Apr-11 7088.8 27.5 16.8 17.2 27.2 44.4 44.4 0.0

20-Apr-11 7077.5 30.5 18.1 18.2 30.4 48.6 48.6 0.0

21-Apr-11 7066.1 29.8 16.7 17.7 28.8 46.5 46.5 0.0

22-Apr-11 7052.5 31.0 19.6 18.7 31.9 50.6 50.6 0.0

23-Apr-11 7038.9 29.9 27.4 20.1 37.1 57.3 57.3 0.0

24-Apr-11 7023.0 31.1 17.5 18.2 30.4 48.6 48.6 0.0

25-Apr-11 7048.0 30.9 36.9 16.3 39.2 55.5 67.8 12.3

26-Apr-11 7059.3 30.2 33.0 24.5 38.6 63.2 63.2 0.0

27-Apr-11 7057.0 30.9 32.0 21.3 39.2 60.6 62.9 2.3

28-Apr-11 7104.7 29.4 54.1 20.9 40.8 61.6 83.5 21.9

DateInflow to Dam

(Q1)

Outflow from

Dam (Q2)

Catchment

contribution

(downstream of

dam Q3 =Q5-Q2)

Canal 1

Offtake

(Q4a)

Canal 2

offtake

(Q4b)

Canal total

offtake (Q4)

River flow

before Canal

offtake (Q5)

Through

discharge

weir (Q6)

29-Apr-11 7127.4 13.6 83.1 21.2 40.1 61.3 96.7 35.4

30-Apr-11 7152.4 0.0 60.9 21.0 37.5 58.5 60.9 2.3

1-May-11 7181.9 0.0 59.0 20.1 38.9 59.0 59.0 0.0

2-May-11 7204.6 0.0 39.3 15.7 23.6 39.3 39.3 0.0

3-May-11 7218.2 8.3 33.3 16.4 25.2 41.6 41.6 0.0

4-May-11 7222.7 15.3 26.9 15.4 26.8 42.2 42.2 0.0

5-May-11 7225.0 15.3 25.7 15.4 25.7 41.0 41.0 0.0

6-May-11 7229.5 15.0 28.1 15.7 25.1 40.8 43.1 2.3

7-May-11 7231.8 14.8 26.2 15.4 25.7 41.0 41.0 0.0

8-May-11 7236.4 15.1 24.4 15.0 24.6 39.5 39.5 0.0

9-May-11 7236.4 15.4 24.1 15.0 24.6 39.5 39.5 0.0

10-May-11 7236.4 15.5 21.1 13.9 22.7 36.6 36.6 0.0

11-May-11 7236.4 15.2 13.3 11.6 16.8 28.4 28.4 0.0

12-May-11 7225.0 26.9 6.7 13.6 20.0 33.6 33.6 0.0

13-May-11 7211.4 29.2 9.2 14.5 23.9 38.3 38.3 0.0

14-May-11 7206.8 30.3 9.7 15.0 25.1 40.0 40.0 0.0

15-May-11 7197.8 29.5 10.5 15.0 25.1 40.0 40.0 0.0

16-May-11 7184.2 30.5 10.7 15.0 26.2 41.1 41.1 0.0

17-May-11 7166.0 30.6 10.5 15.0 26.2 41.1 41.1 0.0

18-May-11 7154.6 30.2 9.3 14.5 25.1 39.5 39.5 0.0

19-May-11 7154.6 30.1 7.8 14.0 23.9 37.9 37.9 0.0

20-May-11 7161.5 30.2 -20.5 4.2 5.5 9.7 9.7 0.0

21-May-11 7145.6 30.6 12.9 15.4 28.0 43.4 43.4 0.0

22-May-11 7134.2 29.9 4.9 14.4 20.3 34.7 34.7 0.0

23-May-11 7116.1 30.6 10.1 14.1 26.6 40.7 40.7 0.0

24-May-11 7109.3 29.9 9.7 14.5 25.1 39.5 39.5 0.0

25-May-11 7095.6 30.4 12.4 13.1 23.1 36.2 42.8 6.5

26-May-11 7082.0 30.2 9.8 14.6 25.4 40.0 40.0 0.0

27-May-11 7063.9 30.4 9.5 14.7 25.2 39.9 39.9 0.0

28-May-11 7048.0 29.5 8.4 14.0 23.9 37.9 37.9 0.0

29-May-11 7027.5 30.7 7.2 14.0 23.9 37.9 37.9 0.0

30-May-11 7011.9 26.4 10.4 13.6 23.1 36.7 36.7 0.0

31-May-11 6996.3 30.3 5.8 13.3 22.8 36.1 36.1 0.0




Page C2

C2 Probability of Different Flow Levels in Way Sekampung

C2a: Cumulative probability distribution of inflow rate to Batutegi Dam (Q1)

C2b: Cumulative probability distribution of outflow rate from Batutegi Dam (Q2)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

4500.0 5000.0 5500.0 6000.0 6500.0 7000.0 7500.0 8000.0 8500.0

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rob

abili

ty

Flow Rate (m3/s)

Inflow to Batutegi Dam Q1

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rob

abili

ty

Outflow from Batutegi Dam Q2(m3/s)

Outflow from Batutegi Dam (Q2)

C2c: Cumulative probability distribution of river flow rate in Way Sekampung (Q5)

C2d: Cumulative probability distribution of canal offtake before Argoguruh weir (Q4)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rob

abili

ty

River Flow Q5 (m3/s)

River Flow Q5

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rob

abili

ty

Canal Offtake Q4 (m3/s)

Canal offtake Q4

C2e: Cumulative probability distribution of discharge through Argoguruh weir (Q6)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0

Cu

mu

alti

ve P

rob

abili

ty

Discharge through Argoguruh Weir Q6 (m3/s)

Discharge through Argoguruh weir Q6

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Cu

mu

alti

ve P

rob

abili

ty

Discharge through Argoguruh Weir Q6 (m3/s)

Discharge through Argoguruh weir Q6

Appendix D

Current PDAM Information




Page D1

D1 2012 PDAM Tariff Rates




Page D2

D2 Tariff Sensitivity Model

Appendix D2

Tariff Level

(Rp./month)

No. of People

WTP

Cul. No. of

People WTP

% of Lowest

Tariff

% of Surveyed

Population WTP

1,500,000 1 1 5000% 0.2%

1,000,000 2 3 3333% 0.5%

850,000 1 4 2833% 0.7%

750,000 1 5 2500% 0.8%

700,000 2 7 2333% 1.1%

420,000 1 8 1400% 1.3%

400,000 5 13 1333% 2.1%

350,000 8 21 1167% 3.4%

300,000 11 32 1000% 5.2%

260,000 1 33 867% 5.4%

250,000 12 45 833% 7.4%

230,000 1 46 767% 7.5%

210,000 1 47 700% 7.7%

200,000 38 85 667% 13.9%

180,000 3 88 600% 14.4%

175,000 6 94 583% 15.4%

170,000 1 95 567% 15.6%

165,000 1 96 550% 15.7%

160,000 6 102 533% 16.7%

155,000 1 103 517% 16.9%

150,000 95 198 500% 32.5%

140,000 1 199 467% 32.6%

135,000 1 200 450% 32.8%

130,000 5 205 433% 33.6%

125,000 18 223 417% 36.6%

120,000 20 243 400% 39.8%

115,000 2 245 383% 40.2%

110,000 9 254 367% 41.6%

105,000 1 255 350% 41.8%

100,000 152 407 333% 66.7%

95,000 2 409 317% 67.0%

90,000 14 423 300% 69.3%

85,000 3 426 283% 69.8%

80,000 28 454 267% 74.4%

75,000 25 479 250% 78.5%

70,000 27 506 233% 83.0%

65,000 11 517 217% 84.8%

60,000 54 571 200% 93.6%

55,000 3 574 183% 94.1%

50,000 19 593 167% 97.2%

45,000 4 597 150% 97.9%

40,000 8 605 133% 99.2%

35,000 3 608 117% 99.7%

30,000 2 610 100% 100.0%




Page E1

Appendix E

World Bank Feedback




Page E2

E1 World Bank Feedback

World Bank feedback was obtained after the submission of the 1st draft report. The consolidated comments and how the comments are addressed within this report are presented in this appendix.

Table E1: World Bank Feedback

S/N Feedback Arup’s Responses Ref

Demand Analysis

1 About 70 percent of the population

use wells and there would be a

switching cost to them if they

moved to a piped water system.

Also, in the absence of any

regulation that would make the

consumers switch from the wells

to the piped systems, the demand

for PDAM water would be lower.

These factors need to be included

in the demand analysis.

The Willingness to Pay survey

identified the amount that the

respondents were willing to pay for the

switching cost to connect to the PDAM

network. The results indicated that for a

price slightly lower (12.5% less) than

the current connection cost, 95% of the

participants are willing to connect.

Notwithstanding the above, the

principal factor that concerns the

population with regards to water

connection (apart from price) is the

security of supply. The majority of

population is willing to pay (within

their limits) for secure and safe water

supply that delivers potable water

throughout the year. Therefore it is not

anticipated that the future connection

costs will deter the majority of people

who want a safe water supply from

paying (particularly if it is a one-time

fee) for it.

Section 4.3 will be updated to include

the above assumptions.

4.3,4.4

2 Consumers in the area have

different sources of water

including wells, rain storage,

vendors, springs, etc. Is it possible

to obtain data on the possible

distribution of use that would

actually tally up the average cost

per consumer using these

alternative sources? This would

then be a good reference for

understanding what the true

willingness to connect / switch

would be at different tariffs levels.

Section 3.1 of the report will be updated

to include the distribution of different

sources of water for the population that

were identified as part of the MARS

survey. It is not possible to obtain

accurate cost data on using these

sources as many of the costs are not-

direct – such as the cost of the energy

required to power the pumps to extract

groundwater.

The quality of groundwater will also be

discussed in more detail in this section.

3.1.2

3 The per capita water consumption

is shown to increase from 139 to

200 lpcd. This is unlikely to take

place since the increase in tariffs

(which is needed) will reduce

As a city becomes more industrialized

and the population density increases,

the per capita water consumption

increases. Our assumptions on this

increase for Bandar Lampung fall

4.2.1




Page E2

demand, as suggested through the

graph on Tariff Demand

Sensitivity model.

within conservative estimates and the

projected change in demographics. It is

anticipated that non-domestic water

consumption will increase from 13.82%

in 2010 to 25% in 2040. It is important

to note that the per capita consumption

is not based on water supply sources.

This is just an estimate of how the total

water consumption for a city changes as

it becomes more developed.

4 Table 7: it shows that in 2010, the

total demand is 1,415 l/s.

However, this assumes that

879,000 people are connected

which is not the case. With about

30% connection, the current

demand will be around 450 l/s and

that should be starting point in the

demand projections.

Table 7 is an assessment of the total

water demand in the city and should not

be confused with the total piped water

demand supplied by PDAM. This is

discussed in detail in section 4.5. In

other words the total supply is not

meeting the demand.

4.2.4

5 The low/base/high scenarios seem

broadly reasonable if they include

non-household consumption.

However, this crucial assumption

is not in any way confirmed or

documented.

The scenarios do include non-household

consumption.

4.2.1

6 Price sensitivity: The analysis does

not distinguish between domestic

and non-domestic use. It should

be noted that the situation for

industries is very different than for

households (they may have

different alternatives for water

supply and for them change in

production process may

significantly influence their

demand for water from PDAM).

As such, the domestic use analysis

seems confused.

Our analysis uses the domestic

customer tariffs as the basis to calculate

the willingness to pay. This is a

conservative approach as normally

industrial users are willing to more for

water supply than domestic customers

(due to a number of factors such as

security and quality of supply, etc).

Currently PDAM has different tariffs

for different types of users and

industrial users are charged the most per

m3 of supply. In fact some industrial

customers pay greater than 7,000 Rp/m3

for their water supply.

Therefore if we use the domestic

customer as the basis to calculate the

percentage that are willing to pay 6,000

Rp/m3 for water supply, we assume, as

part of this study ,that this will not deter

industry from paying an equivalent

increased cost for their water supply.

We will update these assumptions in

section 4.4 of the Report.

4.4

7 Price sensitivity: In addition to

comment 5 above, the willingness

to pay analysis in Annex D is not

• The Willingness to Pay (WTP) analysis was based on the answers to “how much are you willing to

4.4




Page E2

well documented. No

methodology is explained (only a

table of answers and copies of

existing tariff regulations).

However, it looks like a

willingness to pay study was done

using some form of contingent

valuation methodology. It also

seems as if willingness to pay for

water was analyzed given that a

connection already exists. It

appears that this willingness to pay

was translated into a "willingness

to connect" without justification.

Willingness to connect and

willingness to consume water at

different prices from an existing

connection are two different

things. The price elasticity

numbers quoted are traditional

demand elasticities given that a

consumer already has a

connection. For consumers who

are not connected to PDAM water

supply at the moment there are two

distinct decisions: (1) To connect

or not, and (2) If connected how

much water to consume.

pay for using piped water each month?” The existing average monthly water consumption is used for obtaining the water tariff (Rp./m3) at which the survey participants are willing to pay. Thereafter, we were able to determine the percentage of people who are willing to pay at a certain water tariff level (assuming people are willing to pay if the proposed tariff is lower than what they indicated for WTP.

• In our analysis, the WTP was distinguished from WTC (Willingness to Connect). We will clarify some of the terminologies in revised report in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Report.

• Consumers who are connected to PDAM water supply are faced with two distinct decisions: (1) to connect or not, and (2) if connected how much water will they pay for each month. However, as discussed in question 1 above, the Willingness to Connect (WTC) is 95% for a connection (switching) cost of 1,000,000 Rp, which is close to the prevailing connection cost in Bandar Lampung. On the other side, only 50.2% of people are willing to pay for piped given the proposed water tariff. This means that the connection cost is not the preventing or governing factor. The governing factor is the water tariff level.

8 NRW: The current NRW in the

existing system is 52% and this

appears to be increasing. In the

projections, the NRW is assumed

to decrease rapidly. Proper

justification is required for the

assumption of both the speed of

reduction and the eventual NRW

assumed to be reached in 2040

(35%). As for the new system,

the evolution of NRW from 5% to

20% by 2040 also needs to be

justified – particularly in the

context of Indonesia where major

parts of NRW will be at household

connections, illegal connections

and poor meters, etc, which are not

easily controlled or managed.

It is important to note that the figures on

NRW reduction for the existing

network and proposed NRW on the new

network are estimations only. The PPP2

project company, who will be managing

the new network, will have their own

estimations on the NRW as part of their

O&M targets.

The decrease in the existing network

NRW is due to two main factors:

1. An O&M contractor will be

engaged by PDAM to operate

and maintain both the existing

and the new network. Their

contract will define

requirements to systematically

reduce NRW in the existing

system (through replacement

4.2.3




Page E2

of certain sections of the

network, a focussed approach

to removing illegal

connections, more effective

monitoring of the system to

understand where leaks are

through the introduction of

district metering zones and

reduced response times to

leaks/pipe bursts.

2. A significant proportion of the

existing network will be

replaced by the new network.

The relatively low figure of 20% NRW

for the new system is a conservative

target based on the requirements of

PPP2. PPP2 is required to monitor,

maintain and ensure low NRW is

achieved in order for them to meet their

contractual obligations. The overall PPP

project will not work if high NRW

occurs because PDAM requires a

certain amount of revenue from its

customers in order to be able to pay the

PPP1 consortium for supply of water.

For this reason the contract for PPP2

will set targets for NRW in the system

which must be met.

Notwithstanding the above

assumptions, if the NRW is actually

worse than assumed, this simply

reinforces the need for a piped water

supply as there will be a greater flow

required to meet the demand.

Environmental Flow

9 More information needs to be

provided on the off-take

arrangements as the bulk of the

water would be taken for the

irrigation schemes. Water permits

for the irrigation use should be

reviewed to determine how much

water would be left for water

supply.

Water take-off for irrigation at

Argoguruh Weir is managed by various

parties in Balai Besar. There are

unofficial meetings between operators

and suppliers throughout the year to

regulate water release. There are no

official irrigation water permits that

govern water release.

As a result, the successful allocation of

water resource to irrigation, future bulk

water supply scheme and environmental

flow requires close coordination and

cooperation between all stakeholders,

especially during the low flow seasons.

The purpose of the Technical Principles

for the Memo of Understanding within

5.1.2.4




Page E2

this report is to start the dialogue

between the different water

stakeholders to ensure that management

of water release takes into account the

extraction of water for potable use.

10 The report mentions that the

environmental flow is 3.5 m3/sec

but there were 201 days (over a 4

year period) where the flow before

the irrigation canal was below this

environmental level. In such a

case, how will environmental

flows be maintained if water is

taken out for irrigation and

domestic supply?

The environmental flow can be

maintained by releasing water from the

Batutegi Dam at the right time. This is

why Arup has repeatedly emphasized

that the river water management

requires the cooperation and

coordination between all stakeholders.

The mass balance study conducted by

Arup has demonstrated that there would

be sufficient water for irrigation, water

supply scheme and environmental flow

if the operation of Batutegi Dam has

taken all water needs into account. In

other words, it is critical that the dam

operators at Batutegi Dam continue to

release water from the dam to ensure

that there is sufficient supply to meet

the environmental flow requirements

and also the water supply requirements

for the scheme (even in the low flow

periods).

5.1.2.4

11 In addition to the average,

minimum, and maximum flows,

the probability of different flow

levels should be provided.

The probabilities of different levels of

flow have been included in Appendix

C2.

Appendix

C2

12 What is the status of obtaining a

water permit for drawing for water

supply scheme?

The extraction permit of 500l/s for this

scheme has been granted. A copy of the

permit is attached in Appendix B1 of

this report.

Appendix

B

Water Supply Options

13 The overview of different options is useful (Table). However, the information is provided in qualitative terms. We would suggest that a more quantitative analysis be carried out.

5.2

• For each option considered, the life cycle cost should be estimated per cubic meter of water delivered. The life cycle cost would be the investment cost plus the NPV of the operating cost. This is particularly relevant for schemes that have high pumping or water treatment costs. Once a life cycle cost is determined, the least cost options would automatically

• A detailed quantitative analysis of each of the options is outside the scope of this study. We have referenced cost estimates where they have been provided in other reports, as a means of providing a means for high level comparison. What is evident from this study is that the other options are more expensive to implement (such as desalination) or not practical to implement (building a 45m dam in the centre of the city). PPP1 is the




Page E2

emerge. best option to increase water supply to Bandar Lampung

• The option of reducing NRW (to obtain additional water) should be included in Table 11.

• The option of reducing NRW will be included in this table however this has already been assumed as part of the water demand estimates

• The option for rainwater harvesting (likely volumes and costs) and stormwater reuse (for example via aquifer replenishment, etc, should also be considered.

• Although we have commented on the feasibility of rainwater as an option, a detailed quantitative analysis of rainwater harvesting is outside the scope of the study.

14 A suggestion could then be made

of a road map outline on how the

increasing demand should be met

through different supply sources.

A hierarchy of which options should be

implemented will be included within

section 6.

6

Additional Studies

15 The desk review concludes that

additional studies need to be

conducted (for flow monitoring,

water quality sampling,

groundwater monitoring, and

detailed FS etc.). This tends to

undermine the whole study. The

consultants should make

recommendations now on the road

map based on existing conditions.

The outcome of the study has been to

demonstrate that PPP1 is the best option

for increasing the supply of safe and

secure water to Bandar Lampung. It is

important to recognise that this study is

based on limited data which has not

come from continuous monitoring.

Existing conditions can only be well

understood with the provision of a

reasonable level of information.

In the long term, continuous work is

required to undertake periodic review

and assessment of the findings of this

report and to ensure that the correct

solutions to meet the predicted water

demand growth in Bandar Lampung are

recognised.

7

Documents

Bandar Lampung Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report ...documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/527611468269097065/pdf/806910… · World Bank Group Bandar Lampung Water Supply and