Publication Details

Published by Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID) c/o- Goulburn-Murray Water, PO Box
165, Tatura, Victoria, Australia, 3616.

This report is the first in a series detailing the outcomes of a three stage project investigating the measurement,
remediation and associated decision making for channel seepage.

Acknowledgments
This project would not have been possible without the generous investment of the Murray Darling Commission through
its Strategic Investigation and Education program and additional significant investment by the following organisations:

DNR State Water Projects, Queensland

Goulburn-Murray Water
Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation
Murray Irrigation
Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Southern Rural Water
Sunraysia Rural Water
Wimmera Mallee Water

In addition, ANCID also wishes to acknowledge the significant input made by the many Rural Water Authorities who
responded to the survey which now forms the basis for this Report.

There has also been wide interest in this study and significant input has been provided by a wide and diversified range
of interested people for which ANCID is very appreciative.

This document has been prepared on behalf of ANCID by Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.

Disclaimer
This Report is published by ANCID on the basis that recipients of the Report should make their own inquiries and obtain
appropriate professional advice before relying on any information or any expression of opinion or prediction contained in
this Report. Neither ANCID nor any of the contributing Agencies is responsible for the results of any action taken on the
basis of information in this Report nor for any errors or omissions in this report.

Copyright
This work is copyright. Photographs, cover artwork and logos are not to be reproduced, copied or stored by any
process without the written permission of the copyright holders or owners. All commercial rights are reserved and no
part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced, copied or stored in any form or by any means for the
purpose of acquiring profit or generating monies through commercially exploiting (including but not limited to sales) any
part of or the whole of this publication except with the written permission of the copyright holders.

However, the copyright holders permit any person to reproduce or copy the text and other graphics in this publication or
any part of it for the purposes of research, scientific advancement, academic discussion, record-keeping, free
distribution, educational use or for any other public use or benefit provided that any such reproduction or copy (in part or
in whole) acknowledges the permission of the copyright holders and its source (Development of Guidelines for the
quantification and monitoring of seepage from earthen channels) is clearly acknowledged.

To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability to any
person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other
compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material
contained in it.

The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of ANCID, Murray-Darling Basin Commission or
Land and Water Australia in any way and are presented for the purpose of informing and stimulating discussion for
improved management of the Basin's natural resources.
Foreword

In response to concerns over the lack of information available on seepage from open channel supply systems,
in October, 1998, the Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID) conducted a two-day
Workshop. The Workshop was held at Moama in southern New South Wales and had major support from the
Murray Darling Basin Commission, the Land and Water Research and Development Corporation, the
Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy and 16 other industry organisations. The
Workshop brought together 90 stakeholders and experts in the field of channel seepage from throughout
Australia.

The key outcomes from the Workshop were a suite of recommendations seeking new and extensive
investigations aimed at improving the level of knowledge about channel seepage.

In response to the recommendations, ANCID formed an industry Task Force to advance the investigations. It
has developed a three-stage project designed to implement the recommendations.

Each stage of the project is briefly described as follows:

Stage 1 – This project will investigate best practice, easy to use standards to be used in identifying, measuring
and quantifying channel seepage.

Stage 2 – This project is aimed at providing best practice procedures and processes involved in undertaking
remedial work to seal channels suffering from seepage.

Stage 3 – This project is designed to target the Decision Support Systems needed to assist industry in making
decisions on whether or not to undertake what is often very expensive remedial works on seeping channels.

The three stages will run over four years and will involve a total expenditure of close to $2.5 million. Stage 1 is
now well under way and Stage 2 is scheduled to commence in October, 2000.

The major outcomes from each of the Stages of the project work will be in the form of reports and Best
Practice Guideline Manuals. This report is one of the suite arising out of the project. It summarises the
outcomes of a survey of 41 authorities representative of the rural water industry in Australia. The objective of
the survey was to assess the current status of channel seepage identification and quantification techniques
within Australia. In addition, information was compiled on the estimated volume of seepage loss, confidence in
seepage estimates, importance of channel seepage issues to rural water authorities and the perceived cost of
seepage. A significant effort has been involved in its preparation and I commend the contents to you and am
sure you will find it interesting and informative.

I would like to also acknowledge the significant support and funding provided to this project by the Murray
Darling Basin Commission, the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, several
Water Authorities and Natural Resource Management Agencies. Without their valued support and interest, the
project and this report would not have been possible.

Stephen Mills
Chairman
ANCID
Contents

Executive Summary i
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Groups incorporated into survey 1
1.2 Information gathered in the survey 1
1.3 Response to the survey 3
1.4 Discussion of the Survey results 3

2. Characterisation of rural water supply 4

2.1 Water Supply 4
2.2 Size of Channel Network 6
2.3 Seepage Rates 7
2.4 Confidence in Seepage Estimates 9

3. Significance of Channel Seepage 10

3.1 Importance Assigned to Channel Seepage Issues Within the
Authority 10
3.2 Time and Resources Devoted to Channel Seepage Issues 11
3.3 Work Undertaken to Assess Channel Seepage Issues 12
3.4 Trends Related to Importance of Channel Seepage Issues with
Authority 14

4. Channel Seepage Costs and Issues 16

4.1 Channel Seepage Costs 16
4.2 Problems Associated with Channel Seepage Issues 19

5. Channel Seepage Measurement Techniques 21

5.1 Criteria for Technique Selection 21
5.2 Techniques Used By RWAs 22
5.2.1 Visual Inspection 23
5.2.2 Estimation from Records 23
5.2.3 Piezometric Survey 23
5.2.4 Inflow-Outflow 23
5.2.5 Aerial Photographs 24
5.2.6 Pondage Tests 24
5.2.7 Groundwater Bores and Chemistry Analysis 24
5.2.8 Soil Mapping 24
5.2.9 EM31 24
5.2.10 Idaho Seepage Meter 25
5.2.11 EM34 25
5.2.12 Techniques only used by one RWA 25
5.2.13 Techniques not used by any Authorities surveyed 26
5.3 Techniques Most Preferred By RWAs 26
5.4 Least Successful Techniques 27
5.5 Extrapolation of Techniques 27
5.6 Determination of Accuracy of Techniques 27
6. Channel Seepage Remediation 29
6.1 Extent of Channel Remediation / Lining 29
6.2 Post-Remediation Channel Seepage Assessment 30

7. Demand For Guidelines 32

8. Conclusions 34

Appendix A - Copy of Survey 37

Appendix B - Graphs of Channel Seepage Importance to RWAs 45

iv
Document History and Status

Issue Rev. Issued To Qty Date Reviewed Approved

Draft 0 P. Jackson 1 18/5/00 C. McAuley C. McAuley
Final P. Jackson 5 07/09/00 C. McAuley C. McAuley

Printed: 7 September 2000 10:32 A9/P9

Last Saved: 7 September 2000 11:28 AM
File Name: I:\WCMS\Wc01312\020 - RWA Surv\REP00_01.10\r05sgpsv.doc

Project Manager: Chris McAuley

Name of Organisation: Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage
Name of Project: Channel Seepage Measurement Project
Name of Document: National Rural Water Authority Survey
Document Version: Final
Project Number: WC01312.02
Executive Summary

The Australian National Committee of Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID), in

conjunction with the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), have initiated
a project to investigate channel seepage measurement. This report
summarises the outcomes of a survey of 41 rural water authorities (RWAs)
representative of the rural water industry in Australia (24 of the 41 surveys
were useful for analysis purposes).

The key outcomes from the survey are summarised below.

Water Supply, Size of ¨ The majority of rural water authorities surveyed
Channel supply less than 100 GL/yr.
Network and Seepage ¨ On average, 17.5% of released water is lost
Rates through unaccounted for processes.
¨ On average 4% of total water supplied by all RWAs
surveyed is estimated to be lost via seepage.
¨ An estimated 320 GL of water is lost each year
from the authorities surveyed.
¨ The average length of earthen channel per GL of
water supplied is 3.85 km. This result is skewed,
however, by one RWA which has 54 km channel /
GL supplied. When this result is removed the
overall average drops to 1.45 km / GL water
supplied.
Significance of Channel ¨ Two-thirds of all authorities surveyed have a
Seepage reasonable or higher confidence in their estimate of
seepage.
¨ Of the authorities surveyed, 42% rate channel
seepage as a high or very high priority.
Channel Seepage Costs & ¨ Measurement of channel seepage is most
Issues commonly considered the area where additional
resources need to be applied.
¨ 25% of authorities have undertaken assessment of
seepage at 3 or more sites.
¨ 50% of authorities have undertaken no on ground
seepage measurement works at all.
¨ Extensive seepage investigations are generally only
undertaken by water authorities delivering greater
than 160 GL/Yr.
¨ There is a weak correlation between increased
investigation and higher confidence in channel
seepage estimates.
¨ The priority given to channel seepage appears
dependent mostly on the perceived cost of the
impacts of channel seepage
¨ Loss of water is considered the most significant
cost consequence of channel seepage
¨ It is estimated that 46% of authorities do not know
the extent of land degradation associated with
channel seepage. A further 25% believe it to be
less than 1 Ha.
i
 ¨ Of the authorities surveyed, 16% indicated that they
are spending more on channel seepage
identification, measurement and remediation than
the estimated cost of water lost and other impacts
of seepage from the channel.
¨ The average expenditure on channel seepage
identification, measurement and remediation is
approximately 60% of the estimated cost of water
lost and other impacts of seepage from the
channel
¨ Remediation works accounts for 61% of the monies
spent on channel seepage, with monitoring and
investigation contributing 35%.
Channel Seepage ¨ Cost and speed are considered the most important
Measurement Techniques criteria in channel seepage assessment.
¨ Technical accuracy is considered of lesser
importance.
¨ Seepage identification (visual, piezometers) rather
than quantification techniques dominate channel
seepage assessment methods.
Channel Seepage ¨ The majority of authorities do less than 5 km of
Remediation remediation works per year.
Demand for Guidelines ¨ The majority of authorities believe that there is
insufficient information and/or expertise on
techniques for seepage identification and
measurement.
¨ There is a strong demand for guidelines on
channel seepage identification and measurement

A significant feature of the survey results was the apparent inconsistencies

within and between surveys. This suggests that understanding of channel
seepage issues and the approach to addressing them is ad-hoc for many
authorities. Perceptions of seepage loss rates were often unsupported by
seepage assessment studies. In addition a significant number of authorities
who were undertaking assessment were finding that their assessment was
not improving their confidence is seepage estimates. This suggests a lack of
direction in the application of assessment methodologies.

Channel seepage remediation projects are often undertaken without

quantitative analysis of seepage. The failure to clearly establish cost-benefit
aspects of remediation contradicts the priority that the value of water lost is
the major motivator for channel seepage investigations. The reliance on
qualitative techniques such as visual inspection and piezometric surveys
confirms this inconsistency. This is further supported by 70% of RWAs who
acknowledge that there is insufficient information and expertise to assess
channel seepage. However a clear outcome of the survey was the desire of
RWAs to overcome these knowledge gaps and develop a more systematic
approach to channel seepage assessment.

ii
1. Introduction

The Australian National Committee of Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID), in

conjunction with the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), have initiated
a project to investigate channel seepage measurement. The main objectives
of the study are to:
1. Assess the current status of channel seepage identification, measurement
and quantification techniques;
2. Trial and document a range of seepage identification, measurement and
quantification techniques; and
3. Prepare and publish guidelines on the best practice techniques for
identifying, quantifying and monitoring channel seepage.

The first of these objectives is to be met by a combination of a literature

review of available information in conjunction with a survey of 41 Rural Water
Authorities (RWAs). This report summarises the RWA survey information.

1.1 Groups incorporated into survey

Information was gathered The survey was sent to 41 different Rural Water Authorities or Irrigation
from a representative Districts / Areas across Australia. The list of authorities was supplied by
group of rural water ANCID and is considered to be representative of rural water management
management authorities authorities providing water for irrigation purposes.

Figure 1.1 shows the majority of surveys were sent to Rural Water Authorities
in the eastern States, broadly reflecting the distribution of surface water
resources within Australia (Figure 1.2).

1.2 Information gathered in the survey

The questions within the survey were designed to compile information on the
following areas:
¨ Total water supplied by the RWA;
¨ An estimate of seepage losses in the channel distribution systems, and
total system losses, ie unaccounted for water;
¨ Effect of seepage losses (monetary loss of water and land degradation);
¨ Importance of channel seepage issues to the RWA;
¨ Accuracy of (ie, confidence in) seepage estimates;
¨ Criteria by which the Authority select a seepage measurement technique;
¨ Estimate of money spent addressing channel seepage issues; and,
¨ Seepage measurements techniques (techniques used, perceived
accuracy, cost and satisfaction with outcome).

A copy of the survey is presented in Appendix A.

1
Figure 1.1: Survey Return Rate by State

16 Not Returned
1
Not Applicable
14
Returned & Applicable
No of Rural Water Authorities

12 5

10

1
6 1
9 1 5
4
6
1
4 2
2
2 2
1
0
QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA
State

Figure 1.2: Distribution of Surface Water Use in Australia

Note: Source of diagram – Review 85, National Water Resources Audit

2
 1.3 Response to the survey

Of the surveys forwarded to the representative Rural Water Authorities, 90%

were returned (Figure 1.3). The survey was not seen as applicable to 32% of
the RWA’s as channels did not form a significant part of their distribution
network. As a result, of the 41 surveys sent out, 24 (58%) provided
information on channel seepage from earthen channels. The majority of
these were from the eastern States (Figure 1.1), reflecting the distribution of
water resources within Australia.

Of the surveys issued, Figure 1.3: Survey Return Rate

90% were returned.
However only 58%
contained the relevant
information. Not returned
10%

Returned (Not
Applicable)
32%

Returned &
Applicable
58%

1.4 Discussion of the Survey results

Discussion of the survey results is divided into six sections. For each section,
a summary of the applicable survey questions and the section of this report
under which the results are discussed is provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Analysis of Survey Results

Section Title Relevant Survey Questions
3 Water Supply, Size of Channel Network and Seepage Rates Q1 - Q6
4 Significance of Channel Seepage Q7, Q12, Q13
5 Channel Seepage Costs & Issues Q8 – Q11
6 Channel Seepage Measurement Techniques Q14 – Q 19
7 Channel Seepage Remediation Q20 – Q22
8 Demand for Guidelines (and Additional Comments) Q23 – Q24 (Q25)

3
2. Characterisation of rural water supply

The initial section of the survey (Questions 1 to 6) was designed to

characterise the nature of water distribution among the representative rural
water management authorities. This included an assessment of the volume
of water distributed, the length of channel in the distribution system and the
understanding of losses from the distribution system. Each of these aspects
is discussed in the section below.

2.1 Water Supply

Figure 3.1 illustrates the size of the RWAs surveyed, based on the
approximate quantity of water delivered each year by the Authorities. The
most common size is in the 100 – 500 GL/yr range, accounting for eight
authorities / irrigation areas, followed by the 50 – 100 GL/yr range which
represents six RWAs.

The majority of rural Figure 2.1: Size of RWAs Based on Annual Volume of Water Supplied
water authorities
surveyed supply less Approximate Annual Quantity of Water Supplied by RWAs
than 100 GL/yr.
40

33

30

25
% of RWAs

20
17

10 8 8 8

0
< 10 10 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 500 500 - 1,000 > 1000

Quantity of water supplied (GL/year)

Figure 2.2 presents the annual total volume delivered by the 24 RWAs on a
state by state basis. The bulk of the water delivered represented by this
survey comes from the east coast states, Queensland (1,480 GL/yr), New
South Wales (2,710 GL/yr) and Victoria (3,370 GL/yr). This reflects the overall
distribution of surface water resources within Australia. Figure 2.3 shows the
average annual volume delivered per RWA. New South Wales is shown to
have the largest average Authority based on water supplied.

4
Figure 2.2: Water Supply on State by State Basis

Total Water Supplied by RWAs (from applicable surveys)

3,500
3,374

3,000
2,707

2,500
Water Supplied (GL/yr)

2,000

1,480
1,500

1,000

500 270
185
5
-
QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA

State

The average volume of distribution of the Authorities surveyed is 341 GL/yr.

However a more accurate picture of the distribution size of a ‘typical’ RWA is
the median, which is 80 GL/yr. In general the distributed volume of authorities
in Victoria and NSW is significantly higher than the National average. This in
part is a reflection of the distribution of surface water resources and the
current water management structure of each of the States.

Figure 2.3: Average Size of RWA By State

700

600
Average GL / year per Authority

500

National Average
400

300

200

100

0
QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA

State

5
2.2 Size of Channel Network

Figure 2.4 provides an indication of the typical length of the earthen channel
network within each of the RWAs surveyed. The most common length of
channel within an RWA was less than 100 km, accounting for nine authorities.
Two authorities had no earthen channels, only concrete lined channels, and
two authorities contained more than 5000 km of earthen channel.

Overall the National average for the length earthen channel per GL supplied is
approximately 3.85 km / GL water supplied. (However this result needs to be
treated with some caution as one Authority within Victoria reports 54 km
channel / GL supplied. When this result is removed the national average
drops to 1.45 km / GL water supplied.) Based on the authorities surveyed,
the length of the distribution systems per GL supplied is significantly longer in
Victoria and NSW than in the other States, as depicted in Figure 2.5. Again,
note that the high result in Victoria is largely due to the effect of one RWA.

Figure 2.4: Distribution of Lengths of Channel Network

Total length of earthen channels (km) within each Authority

10
9

8
No. of Water Authorities

6
6

4
3

2 2 2
2

0
0 0 - 100 100 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 5000 > 5000

Length of earthen channel (km)

6
 Figure 2.5: Total Earthen Channel Length by State

5.00

4.50

4.00 National Average

Km channel / GL water supplied

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA

State

2.3 Seepage Rates

Questions four and five of the survey aimed to gain an understanding of how
much water the RWAs estimate they are losing to seepage.

Figure 2.6 presents data for all of the 24 RWAs, showing unaccounted for
water (evaporation, seepage, measurement errors, unaccounted diversions
etc) and seepage losses as a percentage of total water delivered by the
Authorities. The data has been presented in ascending order of seepage
rate, to help depict the range and distribution of the estimates.

7
 Figure 2.6: Unaccounted for Water and Seepage Loss Rates

30
Estimated Unaccounted For Water

25 Estimated Total Seepage Rate

20
% Loss

15

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Individual RWA

On average, 17.5% of Figure 3. indicates the estimates of unaccounted for water ranges from 3% to
released water is lost 25% (average 17.5%) of total delivered volume. Seepage is estimated to
through unaccounted for represent from 1% to 14% (average 4%) of total delivered volume. The
processes. On average correlation between overall system loss and seepage loss is poor. This
4% of water is lost suggests seepage is more a product of local conditions within each authority
through seepage. than as a consistent percentage of total system losses. Contributing to this is
the possibility that the way the estimates of seepage loss are made varies
from authority to authority. An example of this can be gauged by the
difference in seepage losses for two authorities adjacent to each other with
similar size and landforms. One authority estimates a seepage loss of 2% of
total delivered water as compared to 10% in the adjacent authority.

An estimated 320 GL of Overall for the authorities surveyed, a total of approximately 320 GL/yr of
water is lost each year water is lost to seepage from the distribution network. This represents 4.2%
from the authorities of all water delivered. On a State by State basis, the percentage of seepage
surveyed. of the total delivered volume is summarised in Figure 2.7.

8
 Figure 2.7: Average Seepage Rate by State

12 11.2

10
Average Seepage Rate (%)

6
National Average (4.2%)
4.7
4.3

4 3.3
2.7 2.6

0
QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA

State

2.4 Confidence in Seepage Estimates

Question 6 of the survey ascertains the level of confidence the Authorities

have in their seepage estimates. Figure 2.8 presents the results of this
question. Of the authorities surveyed, 67% have a reasonable or higher
confidence in their estimates.

Two-thirds of all Figure 2.8: Confidence in Seepage Estimate

authorities surveyed
have a reasonable or
higher confidence in
their estimate of Very High Very Low
4%
seepage. High 8%
8%
Low
29%

Reasonable
Confidence
51%

9
3. Significance of Channel Seepage

Part of the survey (Questions seven, twelve and thirteen) was designed to
assess how significant an issue channel seepage is to rural water supply
authorities.
3.1 Importance Assigned to Channel Seepage Issues Within the
Authority

Figure 3.1 presents the responses to question seven regarding how

importantly channel seepage issues are regarded within the Authority. The
definition of priority used in the survey is explained in the table below:
Priority Definition
Not a Priority at all Not an issue facing the organisation
Low Priority Within top 20 issues facing the organisation
Average Priority Within top 10 issues facing the organisation
High Priority Within top 3-5 issues facing the organisation
Very High Priority Top 1-2 issues facing the organisation
One third of the respondents indicated channel seepage was either not a
priority or a very low priority (defined as being within the top 20 issues facing
the organisations). One quarter of the respondents regarded channel
seepage issues as being of average priority, which was defined as being
within the top ten issues facing the RWA. A further third of Authorities regard
channel seepage issues as being a high priority, and within the top 3-5 issues
facing the company / organisation. Two of the RWAs regarded channel
seepage issues as being among the top two priorities of the Authority.
Of the authorities Figure 3.1: Importance of Channel Seepage Issues within Authority
surveyed, 42% rate
channel seepage as a
high or very high priority. Importance of Channel Seepage Issues

Very high priority Not a priority

8% 4%
Low priority
29%

High priority
34%

Average priority
25%

10
 3.2 Time and Resources Devoted to Channel Seepage Issues

Question 13 of the survey asked if, in the opinion of the respondent, the
organisation is devoting sufficient time and resources to the following channel
seepage issues. The responses are presented in Figure 3.2.
a) Channel Seepage Identification,
b) Channel Seepage Measurement / Quantification,
c) Channel Seepage Identification,
d) Management of Channel Seepage Effects, and
e) Community Education with respect to Channel Seepage Identification.

Figure 3.2: Time and Resources Devoted to Channel Seepage Issues

a) Is your ogranisation devoting sufficient time / resources b) Is your organisation devoting sufficient time / resources to
to channel seepage identification? channel seepage measurement / quantification?

don’t know don’t know

8% 8%

yes
42%

no yes
38% 54%
no
50%

c) Is you organisation devoting sufficient time / resources d) Is your organisation devoting sufficient time / resources to the
to channel seepage remediation? management of channel seepage effects?

don’t know don’t know

13% 13%

no
yes
25% no 54%
yes 33%
62%

e) Is your organisation devoting sufficient time / resources to

community education of channel seepage issues?

don’t know
8%

yes
no 50%
42%

11
Measurement of channel In order of importance, the issues that are currently considered as not getting
seepage is most sufficient resources are:
commonly considered
the area where additional 1) Seepage measurement (50% believe insufficient resources/time allocated);
resources need to be 2) Community education of channel seepage issues (42%);
applied. 3) Identification of seepage areas (38%);
4) Management of seepage impacts (33%); and
5) Channel seepage remediation (25%)

3.3 Work Undertaken to Assess Channel Seepage Issues

Question 12 of the survey asked how much work had been undertaken in the
past ten years to assess channel seepage issues. The definition of how
much work was ‘significant’ assessment is outlined in the table below and the
results are presented in Figure 3.3.

No Assessment Minimal Assessment Some Assessment Significant Assessment Extensive Assessment

No assessment made of Estimates of channel 1 - 3 site specific 3 – 5 site specific seepage More than 5 site specific
channel seepage losses seepage system losses seepage studies studies undertaken seepage studies
based on records undertaken undertaken

25% of authorities have Figure 3.3: Work Undertaken by RWAs in Past Ten Years to Assess
undertaken assessment Channel Seepage Issues
of seepage at 3 or more
sites, however 50% have
undertaken no on ground Don’t know
4%
No assessment
4%
works at all. Extensive
assessment
17%

Significant
assessment
8%

Minimal
assessment
Some assessment 42%
25%

The results of this question reveal that the majority of RWAs have done no on-
ground works to assess channel seepage. 42% of Authorities indicated that
minimal assessment only had been conducted, that is, channel seepage
estimates are made based on records rather than on-ground works. One
quarter of Authorities (six) have undertaken some assessment (1-3 site
specific seepage studies), while a further six have undertaken significant or
extensive assessment. The six in the ‘significant’ and ‘extensive’ assessment

12
 categories were all from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. All but
one were supplying more than 160,000 ML/yr.

Extensive seepage A comparison was conducted between the results of question 6, regarding
investigation is generally confidence in seepage estimates, and question 12, regarding the amount of
only undertaken by the work conducted to determine seepage losses. The results of this comparison
larger water authorities. are plotted in Figure 3.4. (Note that some points contain more than one result
– illustrated by larger dots).

Figure 3.4: Work Undertaken to Assess Seepage Against Confidence

in Seepage Estimate

Work Undertaken To Assess Channel Seepage vs Confidence in Seepage Estimate

5 Very High
Confidence
Confidence in Seepage Estimate

4 High
Confidence

3 Reasonable
4 points 3 points
Confidence

2 Low 4 points
Confidence

1 Very Low
Confidence
No Minimal Some Significant Extensive
Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Work Undertaken To Assess Channel Seepage

There is a weak The results show that the amount of work undertaken on channel seepage
correlation between assessment is only weakly correlated with the confidence of the Authority in
increased investigation their seepage estimate. There is a general trend to higher confidence with
and higher confidence in more investigation, but the range of confidence in that band is fairly wide. For
channel seepage an example of inconsistencies in the trend, one RWA has very high
estimates. confidence in their seepage estimate, yet has done only minimal assessment.
Another, despite having conducted extensive assessment has only
reasonable confidence in their seepage estimate. The fairly flat line of best fit
applied to the data tends to indicate that an increase in the amount of work
undertaken does not result in clear gains in an understanding of seepage
rates. Only five RWAs had greater than a reasonable confidence in their
seepage estimate.

13
3.4 Trends Related to Importance of Channel Seepage Issues with
Authority

Analysis was conducted to further explore why some Authorities place

channel seepage issues as a higher priority than others. This was achieved
by plotting the results of question seven (importance of channel seepage)
against other characteristics of the Authority, including:
¨ Seepage rate;
¨ GL supplied per year;
¨ Volume lost to seepage; and,
¨ Estimated cost of seepage.

Table 3.1 summarises the key finds of this analysis. The associated graphs
are contained in Appendix B.

Table 3.1: Results of Analysis of Importance of Seepage Issues

Characteristic of Authority Comment on Correlation (refer to Appendix B for graph)

Seepage Rate A weak correlation is observable between the two variables. For example,
there were no RWAs who assigned seepage issues as being of low priority
(Figure B.1)
with a seepage rate above 4%. However, the converse is not true, with
five Authorities with a seepage rate below 4% but indicating seepage
issues to be a high priority within the organisation. This shows that while
a low seepage rate is more likely cause an Authority to not regard seepage
issues highly, there are others factors at play. These may include the
volume of water lost to seepage (ie a fairly low seepage rate but multiplied
by a large volume amounts to high absolute losses), environmental issues
or issues of public perception.

GL supplied / Yr Again only a weak correlation is observed between the two variables, with
many exceptions to the general trend. In fact a strong trend between these
(Figure B.2)
variables would not generally be expected. It would be assumed that
stronger trends would exist between the seepage rates and relative
amounts of water lost, than simply the size of the Authority. One
hypothesis for larger Authorities (greater delivery volumes) placing a
higher value on channel seepage issues is that they can afford to, where a
smaller Authority may not have the resources to give channel seepage the
priority they may wish to. Further, larger Authorities may feel more public
pressure to be pro-active about channel seepage and want to be seen to
giving it a high priority.

Volume Seepage Loss A slight correlation is observed between total seepage losses and the
importance of channel seepage issues. However there are many
(Figure B.3)
Authorities whose attitude to channel seepage cannot be explained by this
model. Two RWAs estimate seepage losses below 1,000 ML/yr but place
a high priority on seepage issues, and three RWAs with losses between
3,000 ML/yr – 22,000 ML/yr place only a low value on channel seepage.
The second largest loser of water to seepage (estimated 55,000 ML/yr)
regards channel seepage issues as being only of average importance.

Estimated Cost of Seepage A weak to moderate trend is observed. With the exception of one RWA,
those Authorities who incur high costs associated with channel seepage
(Figure B.4)
(> $100,000 / yr) give it a high priority. Aside from the high end of the
cost range there is no correlation observed between the two variables.

14
The priority given to The key outcomes from this analysis include:
channel seepage appears ¨ Authorities which believe channel seepage to be of low priority all think that
dependent mostly on the seepage represents less than 4% of supplied water;
perceived cost of the ¨ A high priority for seepage appears independent of estimated % seepage
impacts of channel loss;
seepage. ¨ Priority of channel seepage shows weak correlation to actual volume lost;
¨ Of the six Authorities that estimated the cost of seepage to exceed
$100,000, five rated channel seepage as a high priority.

In summary, the analysis conducted in this section has shown at best only
moderate trends between how importantly RWAs view channel seepage and
other key variables, such as seepage rates, volume of water lost and cost of
seepage. These results indicate that either:
i) The factors that influence an RWAs perception of channel seepage is
multifaceted and cannot be summarised by single variate analysis.
ii) The survey has been filled out inconsistently.

Given that in answer to a question later in the survey concerning the problems
associated with channel seepage, the number one response was “financial
loss to the Authority”, it is somewhat surprising that a better correlation was
not observed between the cost of seepage and the importance of seepage
issues to the RWA. The lack of a fine enough scale to accommodate
answers regarding the importance of channel seepage (Q7) may also have
contributed to the absence of definitive trends uncovered in the analysis.

15
4. Channel Seepage Costs and Issues

This section is based on Questions 8 – 11 of the survey and is focussed on

the costs of seepage and the main issues of concern caused by channel
seepage.

4.1 Channel Seepage Costs

Figure 4.1 presents the results of Question 8 of the survey, part A of which
asked for an annual cost estimate of channel seepage within the Authority.
Part B of the question, asked for a breakdown of the costs, providing an
option of loss of water, land damage / degradation and ‘other’. The column
chart in the figure below address part A and the pie chart summarise the
results of part B.

Figure 4.1: Costs of channel seepage

Annual cost estimate assigned to channel seepage

7
7

6
6
No. of Water Authorities

3 3
3

2
2

1 1 1
1

0
Less than $10,000 - $50,000 - $100,000 - $250,000 - Greater than Not Applicable Don't know
$10,000 $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 500,000 $500,000

Annual cost estimate

B re a kd o w n o f S e e p ag e C o s ts

O th e r
8%
L a n d d a m ag e /
d eg ra d a tio n
22%

L o s s o f w a te r
70%

Perhaps the most apparent observation to be made is the relatively large

number of Authorities (seven) which were not able to estimate the costs of
16
 channel seepage. Apart from this category, the most common estimate of
seepage costs was in the $10,000 - $ 50,000 range. The remainder of the
results were well spread. Three Authorities indicated costs exceeded
$250,000 per year, with one of these estimating costs above $500,000 per
year.

Loss of water is The breakdown of the costs reveals loss of water to be the dominant cost
considered the most associated with channel seepage issues, comprising 70% of total costs.
significant cost Figure 4.2 presents the results to Question 9 regarding the amount of land
consequence of channel estimated to be directly degraded by channel seepage (ie waterlogging or
seepage. salinisation). Again, the most notable feature of the results in the large
number of Authorities (11) which were not able to estimate the area of land
degraded by channel seepage. This included Authorities across the range of
sizes, including several of the very large suppliers. Apart from this result the
dominant estimate was that channel seepage was causing minimal or no
degradation of the land (< 1 Ha). Only five Authorities estimated land
damage to exceed more than 20 Ha.

It is estimated that 46% Figure 4.2: Land Directly Degraded by Channel Seepage
of authorities do not
know the extent of land Approximate area of land degraded by channel seepage
degradation associated
with channel seepage. A 12
further 25% believe it to 11

be less than 1 Ha. 10

No. of Water Authorities

6
6

2 2
2
1 1 1

0
Less than 1 1 - 10 Ha 10 - 20 Ha 20 - 50 Ha 50 - 100 Ha Greater than DonÆ
t know
Ha 100 Ha

Area of land affected

Of the authorities Figure 4.3 plots the estimated annual cost of channel seepage against
surveyed, 16% indicated annual expenditure. The dashed line indicates the scenario where
that they are spending expenditure perfectly balances cost. Only four points lie above this line,
more on channel indicating the majority of RWAs are spending less on channel seepage issues
seepage than the than they estimate channel seepage is costing them. In fact, the solid line of
estimated cost. best fit shows that on average, RWAs are spending only around 60% on
channel seepage of the costs incurred by the problem. Figure 4.4 presents
similar results but at a State level. On a State by State basis the annual cost
17
 of channel seepage compared to the annual money spent on channel
seepage is presented. NSW and Victoria are shown to be spending
approximately the same amount of money on channel seepage as the costs
incurred, Queensland and WA indicate some significant differences.

The average expenditure Figure 4.3: Cost of Channel Seepage vs Annual Channel Seepage
on channel seepage is Expenditure
approximately 60% of the
estimated cost of the
seepage.
500,000
Annual Expenditure on Channel Seepage ($/yr)

400,000

300,000
Annual Expenditure = Annual Cost

200,000

Annual Expenditure = 0.6 (Annual Cost)

(Line of best fit)

100,000

0
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Estimated Annual Cost of Channel Seepage ($/yr)

Figure 4.4: Annual Total Cost of Channel Seepage Compared to

Expenditure on Channel Seepage

Annual Total Cost & Money Spent on Channel Seepage

$800

Total Cost of
$700 Seepage

Money Spent on
$600
Seepage

$500
$'000s/yr

$400

$300

$200

$100
No info.

$-
QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA
State

Figure 4.5 illustrates how the money spent on channel seepage issues is
divided. On average, sixty percent of an Authority’s channel seepage
expenditure is consumed on channel remediation works. Investigation-

18
 assessment and monitoring are the only other two significant areas where
funding is used, at 18% and 17%, respectively.

Remediation works Figure 4.5: Division of RWA Channel Seepage Expenditure

accounts for 61% of the
monies spent on channel
seepage, with monitoring
How is the channel seepage money spent?

and investigation Threat of litigation

contributing 35%. 1%
Other
1% Investigation /
Assessment
Community education 18%
2%

Monitoring
17%

Channel seepage
remediation
61%

4.2 Problems Associated with Channel Seepage Issues

Question 11 of the survey asked respondents to rank in order of importance

the problems associated with channel seepage. The six options were:
¨ Financial loss to Authority
¨ Economic loss of commodity to community/state/nation
¨ Regional contribution to watertable rise
¨ Local contribution to watertable rise and land salinisation / degradation
¨ Community perception
¨ Threat of litigation

These results were assigned a weighting and the results summarised in

Figure 4.6. This chart illustrates the three issues which were highlighted as
having virtually equally high importance associated with channel seepage,
including: financial loss to Authority, local contribution to watertable rise /
land degradation and economic loss of commodity to the community. The
fact that the local contribution to watertable rise was identified as one of the
most important issues was somewhat surprising given the relatively low
estimates of area of land locally affected by channel seepage in question 9.
This suggests that Authorities were either deliberately underestimating the
area of affected land by local watertable rise, or are concerned about future
19
problems associated with local watertable rise that are yet to be manifested.
Threat of litigation was regarded as the least important issue associated with
channel seepage.

Figure 4.6: Weighting of Problems Associated with Channel Seepage

25%

20%
Weighted Importance of Issue

15%

10%

5%

0%
Financial Loss Local Economic loss Regional Communutiy Threat of
to RWA contribution to to nation contribution to Perception litigation
WT rise WT rise

Problem Associated with Channel Seepage

20
5. Channel Seepage Measurement Techniques

This section presents the results of those questions dealing with channel
seepage measurement techniques, including Q17-Q19.

5.1 Criteria for Technique Selection

Question 17 of the survey asked Authorities to rank the criteria used in

selection of a channel seepage measurement technique. Fifteen of the
twenty-four respondents answered this question. The five criteria provided
were cost, familiarity, speed / broad coverage, technical accuracy and
operational constraints. Respondents were required to rank these criteria (1 -
most important and 6 - least important). To summarise these results, a no. 1
ranking was assigned 10 points, a no. 2 ranking as 6 points, a no. 3 as 4
points, a no. 4 as 2 points and no. 5 as 0 points. These were then added for
each criteria and the percentage results are presented in Figure 5.1 below.

Cost and speed are The most important criteria identified was cost, and the least important was
considered the most familiarity with the technique. Speed, or the ability of the technique to cover
important criteria in large areas rapidly, was ranked as the second most important criteria.
channel seepage Technical accuracy and operational constraints were weighted almost evenly
assessment. Technical as the third most important criteria to consider when selecting a technique.
accuracy is considered The priority placed on cost and speed suggests that identification of where
of lesser importance. channels seep rather than quantification of the seepage loss are the driving
forces behind current seepage investigations.

Figure 5.1: Main Criteria Used For Selection of a Channel Seepage

Measurement Technique

Operational
Constraints
16% Cost
31%

Technical
Accuracy Familiarity
19% 10%
Speed / Broad
Coverage
24%

21
 5.2 Techniques Used By RWAs

Question 14 was one of the most significant questions in the survey with
respect to the survey’s main goals, which asked respondents to indicate the
techniques previously and currently used by the Authority to quantify / identify
channel seepage, and to indicate the accuracy, cost and satisfaction of using
the technique. Three of the 24 respondents did not answer this question.
Table 5.1 presents the results of the question. The number in columns 2 & 3
indicate the number of Authorities who have used / use the technique. The
results are presented in descending order of the most popular current
techniques. The remaining columns tabulate the percentage breakdown of
responses concerning perceived accuracy, relative cost and satisfaction.

Table 5.1: Techniques used By RWAs for Channel Seepage Measurement

No. of RWAs No. of RWAs
Technique Which Which No. of RWAs No. of RWAs No. of RWAs
Used in Past Currently Use
Perceived Accuracy Relative Cost Satisfaction
Low Med High Low Med High Not Sat. Sat. V. Sat
Visual Inspection 15 18 5 10 2 17 1 - 6 9 2
Estimated from Records 11 11 9 3 1 10 1 1 7 5 -
Piezometric Survey 6 9 - 7 2 - 4 5 - 8 1
Inflow – Outflow Studies 5 7 3 4 1 4 2 - 3 4 -
Aerial Photographs 6 7 4 5 - 4 4 1 3 4 1
Pondage Tests 4 6 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 -
Groundwater Bores & Water 4 6 - 2 4 - 4 2 - 6 -
Chemistry Analysis
Soil Mapping 4 4 2 - - 2 - - 3 - -
EM31 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 - 1 1 1
Idaho Seepage Meter 5 - 2 1 1 1 - 2 4 - -
EM34 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 -
Constant Head Permeameter 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -
Sentec ??? 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -
1
Measurement of Flow Through Pipe 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 1 -
EM38 1 1 1 - - - 1 - 1 - -
Channel Seepage Modelling / 1 1 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 -
Mathematical Equations
Dig Slits in Channel Bed - 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1
Indicator Plants - 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1
Seismic 1 1 - - - - - - - - -
EKS 1 1 - - - - - - - - -
Test Hole Measurement 1 - - - - - - - - -
1. Definition provided in survey by RWA: Leak confined to drain or pipe and flow measured

22
5.2.1 Visual Inspection
Table 5.1 indicates that visual inspection is the most popular means of
identifying channel seepage, with 18 of the 21 RWAs currently using this as
an assessment tool. Approximately 60% of Authorities believe this to be a
reasonably accurate means of identifying seepage, 30% perceive it to have
low accuracy while 10% believe it to be a highly accurate means of identifying
channel seepage. As expected, the vast majority of RWAs recognised this as
a low cost means of channel seepage assessment. The percentage split
indicating satisfaction with the technique virtually matched their perception of
the technique’s accuracy. That is, those Authorities who believed the
technique to have low accuracy were not satisfied, those who thought it was
highly accurate were very satisfied etc. Some of the different comments on
visual inspection noted that: is was easy because it was obvious, useful for
qualitative purposes only and useful when combined with other techniques.

5.2.2 Estimation from Records

While estimation from records was the second most popular technique of
channel seepage assessment, 70% of those RWAs who use it perceive it to
be of low accuracy, and 58% are not satisfied with this as a technique,
despite the relatively low costs. Comments on this technique were negative,
indicating that it was a ‘waste of time’, ‘not comparable with (other) seepage
measurement techniques’ and the accuracy is low as ‘other causes of losses
are significantly greater than seepage’.

Despite the generally low confidence in the accuracy of visual inspection and
estimation from records, six of the twenty-one RWAs (≈ 30%) who answered
Q14 of the survey indicated that these two techniques were the only means
used by their Authority of quantifying / identifying seepage, presumably due
to the low cost and technical input required.

5.2.3 Piezometric Survey

Nine of the RWAs surveyed currently have piezometers installed with the
intent of identifying / quantifying channel seepage. Of the major techniques
used by Authorities, this was the technique which most RWAs were satisfied
with (8 of the 9 Authorities were satisfied and 1 was very satisfied). Seven of
the 9 RWAs believed the accuracy was acceptable and 2 perceived it to be
highly accurate. It was generally seen as an expensive technique however,
with more than half indicating it was a relatively high cost means of assessing
channel seepage. The only comment made on this method was that
‘groundwater levels point to problem areas’ suggesting use of the method for
identification rather than quantification.

5.2.4 Inflow-Outflow
Seven RWAs have used inflow-outflow studies to measure channel seepage.
The statistics from the survey results indicate approximately half of the seven
were moderately happy with this technique and believed it to be acceptably
accurate and the other half were not satisfied and perceived the accuracy to
be low. The majority saw this as a relatively inexpensive means of quantifying
23
channel seepage. The comment was made that the technique requires very
accurate measurement, which is often quite difficult.

5.2.5 Aerial Photographs

Seven RWAs use aerial photographs to identify channel seepage. It was
generally perceived to be a technique of low to medium accuracy and
relatively low to medium cost compared to other techniques. While slightly
more than half were at least satisfied with the technique, about 40% were not
satisfied. The comment was made by one respondent that the technique was
useful when combined with other methods.

5.2.6 Pondage Tests

Six of the RWAs surveyed use pondage tests to quantify channel seepage.
Five of the six RWAs perceived the method to be of moderate to high
accuracy. Only one thought it was of low accuracy. Satisfaction with the
outcome of pondage tests reflected the perception of accuracy. It was
generally perceived to be a moderate to highly expensive means of channel
seepage measurement. The one RWA who was not satisfied with the
technique made the comment that using this technique ‘it is impossible to
locate seepage hot spots’.

5.2.7 Groundwater Bores and Chemistry Analysis

All six of the RWAs surveyed who use groundwater bores and water chemistry
analysis to identify / quantify channel seepage perceived it to be of medium
to high accuracy, but also of medium to high cost. All six RWAs were
satisfied with the results of this technique.

5.2.8 Soil Mapping

The four RWAs to use soil mapping for identifying / quantifying channel
seepage were unanimous in their belief that it is a technique of low accuracy,
low cost and ultimately not a satisfactory means of assessing channel
seepage. Two comments on this technique suggested that the difficulty with
the technique was due to the lack of a fine enough scale in soil maps, and
the related problem of the variability of the soil types. The comments
suggested that they did not actually attempt to map the soil types, but used
existing soil maps.

5.2.9 EM31
The three RWAs who use EM31 for channel seepage assessment were each
divided on their opinion of the accuracy, and in turn of their degree of
satisfaction with this technique. One Authority believed it to be of low
accuracy, one of moderate accuracy and one of high accuracy. Two
Authorities saw it as a moderately expensive technique and one as a low cost
tool. The Authority that was very satisfied with the technique and believed it
to be highly accurate use it in conjunction with drilling and excavator
sampling.

24
5.2.10 Idaho Seepage Meter
Five RWAs have used the Idaho seepage meter in the past, but none do so
now. All of these Authorities were unsatisfied with the results of the Idaho
meter, generally believing it to be of high cost and low accuracy. One of the
comments cited the (unexplained) variability of the results as a reason for
dissatisfaction with the Idaho meter.

5.2.11 EM34
Two RWAs have used EM34 for channel seepage assessment in the past, but
only one continues to do so now. The Authority which has abandoned the
technique and was unsatisfied with it, believed it to be of low accuracy. The
other Authority, who used the technique in a quantitative manner when the
survey were correlated against the results of the pondage tests, perceived the
technique to be of moderate accuracy and were satisfied with the outcome.

5.2.12 Techniques only used by one RWA

The following section lists those techniques used only by one Authority, and a
brief comment on their perception of the technique:

¨ Constant Head Permeameter: Perceived to be moderately accurate, of

average expense and the RWA was satisfied with the results.
¨ Sentec Soil Moisture probe: Perceived to be moderately accurate, of
average expense and the RWA was satisfied with the results.
¨ Measurement of Leakage Through Pipe (Defined as ‘Leak confined to
drain or pipe and flow measured’): RWA is satisfied with this technique of
measuring localised leaking which is believed to be of sufficient accuracy
and low expense.
¨ EM38: This shallow geophysical technique was perceived by the RWA who
used it to be of low accuracy and were therefore unsatisfied with the
results.
¨ Channel Seepage Modelling / Application of Mathematical Equations:
While satisfied with the outcome due to the reasonable accuracy of the
results the RWA who used channel seepage modelling identified this a
highly expensive means of channel seepage assessment.
¨ Slits in Channel Bed (‘used to confirm other techniques’): No further
information was given as to the nature of this technique, which is viewed
by the Authority as being highly accurate and of low cost.
¨ Indicator Plants (‘observe natural vegetation indicator plants’): This
technique, described as one which should be used in conjunction with
other techniques, was viewed by the Authority as being highly accurate
and of low cost means of channel seepage assessment.
¨ Seismic Survey – No information given on accuracy, cost or satisfaction
with outcome. The comment was made that the technique ‘has been used
to locate aquifers with some success’.
¨ EKS – No information given on accuracy, cost or satisfaction with
outcome. The comment was made that this technique ‘has been used to
locate aquifers with some success’.
25
 ¨ Test hole measurement – No information given on the nature of this
technique, or the accuracy, cost or satisfaction with the results.
Presumably this refers to some form of point source infiltration test.

5.2.13 Techniques not used by any Authorities surveyed

The techniques which were included in the Table comprising Question 14 but
are not used by any of the RWAs surveyed are listed below:
¨ Disc Permeameter;
¨ Electrical Resistivity; and
¨ Remote Sensing (other than aerial photographs)

5.3 Techniques Most Preferred By RWAs

Thirteen Authorities answered Question 15 which asked respondents for a list

of three techniques most preferred by the Authority for seepage
measurement and / or detection, in order of preference. To summarise the
results into a meaningful statistical response, the no. 1 preferred technique
was assigned a worth of 5 points, the no. 2 technique 3 points, and the no. 3
ranked technique 1 point. These were then added for each technique and
the percentage results are presented in Figure 5.2 below.

Seepage identification Figure 5.2: Channel Seepage Assessment Techniques Most Preferred
(visual, piezometers) by Rural Water Authorities
rather than quantification
techniques dominate
channel seepage
Groundwater Contours
Pondage Tests Aerial Photographs 1%
7%
assessment methods. EM34 & EM31 3%
7% Visual
32%

Direct measurement
of leakage
9%

Estimate from Records

9%

Inflow - Outflow Piezometric Survey

10% 22%

Visual inspection of channels remains the most common method of channel

seepage assessment, comprising almost one-third of the weighted
responses. Use of shallow groundwater bores in the second most preferred
means of assessing channel seepage. Behind these methods a range of
other techniques are equally preferred by RWAs including inflow-outflow
studies, estimation from records, direct measurement of leakage (ie when

26
leakage occurs through banks as surface water, measuring flow with some
device such as a V-notch weir), pondage tests and EM surveys, including
both EM31 and EM34. Aerial photographs and groundwater contours are
also used by one Authority.

5.4 Least Successful Techniques

The results to question 16 “List one or two techniques which you have found
to be the least successful” was only responded to by 6 RWAs. There was no
one technique which came through as being clearly worse than another. The
six techniques and comments where provided are listed below (Note stream
gauging and inflow-outflow are essentially referring to the same technique):
¨ Stream Gauging – Due to flat bed slope in system the accuracy is limited.
For smaller to medium channels the inaccuracies in gauging can swamp
estimates of losses.
¨ Inflow Outflow Studies – Seepage is likely to be within limits of accuracy of
method.
¨ Piezometric Survey – Could not distinguish between natural groundwater
and seepage.
¨ Idaho Seepage Meter – Only useful when seepage is greater than 5
mm/day. Problems with weeds and fast flowing channels. Can’t use on
batters. Very skewed distribution of measurements.
¨ Visual Inspection – Only gives an indication, does not quantify.
¨ EM34 – No comment provided

5.5 Extrapolation of Techniques

Question 18 of the survey asked if attempts had been made by the Authority
to extrapolate the seepage results from one trial across a larger area. Only
five Authorities had made such an attempt. The methods used are described
below along with any comment provided:
¨ EM 31 Survey (No comment provided);
¨ EM34 Survey – Correlating EM34 results against pondage test data and
extrapolating to other sections using the established relationship where
there was no pondage test data;
¨ Pondage tests and soil type – Indicative seepage rates based on
pondages tests for various soils, extrapolated across the region on the
basis of soil types to give total seepage figures; and,
¨ Seepage rates extrapolated against soil type.

5.6 Determination of Accuracy of Techniques

Question 19 of the survey asked if studies had been conducted by the RWA
to determine the accuracy of various seepage measurement techniques.
That is, had they conducted channel seepage studies for the sake of studying
27
the technique, rather than primarily investigating the seepage losses in
particular section of channel.

Eight of the twenty-four RWAs indicated they have conducted such

investigations. Figure 5.3 presents the range of techniques which were
trialed in these investigations, and the number of Authorities which have used
this technique. Again, visual inspection, inflow-outflow studies and
piezometric surveys were identified as the most commonly used techniques
for this purpose.

Figure 5.3: Techniques Used to Determine the Accuracy of Various

Seepage Measurement Methods

6
No. of RWAs Technique Trialled In

0
Piezometric Survey

Geophysical
Pondage Tests

Seepage Metres

Soil Mapping
Visual Inspection
Inflow - Outflow

Aerial Photographs

Water Chemistry

Techniques
Studies

Analysis

Technique

28
6. Channel Seepage Remediation

Although the primary focus of the survey was not on channel seepage
remediation, channel seepage measurement is often conducted with a view
to determining which sections of channel should be remediated / lined. Two
questions were included in the survey to determine the extent of channel
seepage remediation being undertaken by Authorities (Q20 & Q21), and one
to determine if and how post remediation seepage measurements are
undertaken (Q22).

6.1 Extent of Channel Remediation / Lining

The majority of Figure 6.1 presents the results of Q20, and depicts the typical length of
authorities do less than 5 channel which is annually remediated / lined by Authorities. The most
km of remediation works common response was those RWAs undertaking remediation works between
per year. 0 – 5 km/yr. Only two other Authorities were undertaking remediation of
lengths greater than this, with one lining between 5-10 km/yr and the other
15-20 km/yr. In both cases Authorities were delivering more than 400,000
ML/yr. Seven RWAs are not undertaking remediation works at all. The
remaining five respondents did not know or could not approximate the length
of channel lined each year, suggesting channel remediation is not a
significant activity for these Authorities.

Figure 6.1: Typical Length of Channel Annually Lined / Remediated

by Rural Water Authorities

10

10

8
7

7
No. of Water Authorities

6
5

2
1 1

1 0

0
0 km/yr 0 - 5 km/yr 5 - 10 km/yr 10 - 15 km/yr 15 - 20 km/yr Don’t know

Length of channel lined / remediated per year

Figure 6.2 presents the results of Q21 which asked the same question as
Q20, but requested an answer in units of area remediated rather than channel
length. This was included to allow for variability in the size of channels. The
29
results essentially reflect those of Figure 7.2, although a few RWAs which
were in the 0-5 km section have moved up into the higher categories in terms
of area, apparently due to the greater size of their channels.

Figure 6.2: Typical Area of Channel Annually Lined / Remediated by

Rural Water Authorities

7 7

5
No. of Water Authorities

2 2

0
0 m2/year 0 - 10,000 m2/year 10,000 - 50,000 m2/year 50,000 - 100,000 m2/year DonÆ
t know

Area of channel annually remediated (m2/year)

6.2 Post-Remediation Channel Seepage Assessment

Question 22 of the survey asked if attempts are made by the RWAs to assess
reductions in seepage / leakage after remediation works have been
conducted, and if so, to identify the techniques which are used for this
purpose. Nineteen of the twenty-four RWAs answered this question. An
interesting note is that seven Authorities who indicated they didn’t undertake
remediation works (Q20), indicated that they did undertake post-remediation
assessment. This suggests some confusion with the interpretation of the
question. Only the data from those who previously indicated they were
undertaking remediation was used in the analysis.

Of the Authorities undertaking remediation works, a high percentage (10 out

12) undertook some kind of assessment of the success of the works, as
presented in Figure 6.3. However, while this may be seen as a positive trend
in terms of the consideration given to the cost-benefit of channel seepage
remediation, Figure 6.4 indicates most of these post-remediation
assessments are qualitative and not quantitative. Figure 6.4 presents the
results of the range of techniques which are used by RWAs for post-
remediation channel seepage assessment, and the number of Authorities
which have used the technique. Visual inspection and piezometric surveys

30
were clearly identified as the most commonly used techniques for this
purpose, with no other technique being used by more than two RWAs. These
results indicate that either most Authorities assume that their channel
remediation is effective and there is therefore no need for any quantitative
assessment of channel remediation, ie a simple visual inspection is sufficient,
or that an adequate means of post-remediation quantification is too difficult,
too costly, or too technically challenging to be bothered with.

Figure 6.3: RWAs who attempt post-remediation channel seepage

assessment

Are attempts made to assess reductions in seepage / leakage after

remediation works have been conducted?

No
17%

Yes
83%

Figure 6.4: Techniques Used by Rural Water Authorities for Post-

Remediation Channel Seepage Assessment

12
11

10
No. of RWAs Technique Trialled In

6
6

2 2 2 2
2
1

0
Inflow Pondage Aerial Piezometric Visual Seepage Geophysical
Outflow Tests Photographs Survey Inspection Metres Techniques
Studies

Technique

31
7. Demand For Guidelines

The final two questions of the survey sought to determine the general feeling
amongst Authorities with regard to the need for assistance in assessing
channel seepage. Both questions were well answered with 20 and 21
responses from the 24 surveys, for the two questions respectively.

Q23 asked if, in the opinion of the respondent, their is sufficient information /
expertise available to assist in identifying and measuring channel seepage.
Figure 7.1 presents the results of this question. Quite clearly there is a
feeling amongst RWAs that there is not sufficient information and/or expertise
available to assist in identifying and measuring channel seepage, with 70% of
respondents replying in the negative.

The majority of Figure 7.1: RWAs Perception Of Adequacy Of Information / Expertise

authorities believe that Available For Identifying And Measuring Channel Seepage
there is insufficient
information and/or
expertise on techniques Is there sufficient information / expertise available to assist in identifying and
measuring channel seepage?
for seepage identification
and measurement.
Yes
30%

No
70%

If answering in the negative respondents were asked to briefly describe the

areas in which deficiencies exist. Some of the responses are listed below:
¨ No standard guidelines or specifications available;
¨ Need to develop a more systematic approach to quantifying problem and
corrective action;
¨ Need further investigation into cheap, easy to use, accurate, flexible and
reliable measurement systems;
¨ Don’t seem to be any accurate methods to determine losses effectively;
¨ More investigation required for less expensive broad coverage techniques
such as EM34;
¨ Need to know more about who can fix problems; and,

32
 ¨ Information not available locally. Advice on a suitable process to identify
and measure is required.

Q24 asked if a set of guidelines presenting a systematic approach to channel

seepage measurement would be useful for their Authority. The results
presented in Figure 7.2 are overwhelmingly supportive of such an idea, with
90% of RWAs indicating their support of a document of this type.

Figure 7.2: Usefulness of Channel Seepage Guidelines to RWA

Whould a set of guidelines presenting a systematic approach to channel seepage

measurement be usesful for this Authority?

No
10%

Yes
90%

There is a strong demand If answering in the positive to this question, respondents were asked to briefly
for guidelines on channel describe the type of information that such guidelines should contain. Some
seepage identification of the responses are listed below:
and measurement. ¨ An accurate and cost effective method for measuring seepage and
interpretation of results;
¨ Anything would help us;
¨ Decision support on most appropriate technique, specification for
technique and guidance on interpreting results;
¨ Comparisons of seepage in different soils, a review of the process and
extent of the problem, cost-benefit analysis of remediation vs effects,
matrix of cost/ease of use vs accuracy/reliability;
¨ Relationship between types of soil and seepage and head of water and
seepage;
¨ Low cost methods of assessing seepage other than visual inspection,
remediation action plant – priorities;
¨ A systematic approach or guidelines would be of benefit and set an
industry standard; and,
¨ A detailed description of available techniques, relative accuracy and cost.

33
8. Conclusions

The key outcomes from the survey are summarised below.

Water Supply, Size of Channel

¨ The majority of rural water authorities surveyed supply less than 100 GL/yr.

Network and Seepage Rates

¨ On average, 17.5% of released water is lost through unaccounted for
processes.
¨ On average 4% of water is lost through seepage.
¨ An estimated 320 GL of water is lost each year from the authorities
surveyed.
¨ The average length of earthen channel per GL of water supplied is 3.85
km. This result is skewed, however, by one RWA which has 54 km
channel / GL supplied. When this result is removed the overall average
drops to 1.45 km / GL water supplied.

Significance of Channel Seepage

¨ Two-thirds of all authorities surveyed have a reasonable or higher
confidence in their estimate of seepage.
¨ Of the authorities surveyed, 42% rate channel seepage as a high or very
high priority.

Channel Seepage Costs & Issues

¨ Measurement of channel seepage is most commonly considered the area
where additional resources need to be applied.
¨ 25% of authorities have undertaken assessment of seepage at 3 or more
sites.
¨ 50% have undertaken no on ground seepage measurement works at all.
¨ Extensive seepage investigations are generally only undertaken by water
authorities delivering greater than 160 GL/Yr.
¨ There is a weak correlation between increased investigation and higher
confidence in channel seepage estimates.
¨ The priority given to channel seepage appears dependent mostly on the
perceived cost of the impacts of channel seepage
¨ Loss of water is considered the most significant cost consequence of
channel seepage
¨ It is estimated that 46% of authorities do not know the extent of land
degradation associated with channel seepage. A further 25% believe it to
be less than 1 Ha.
¨ Of the authorities surveyed, 16% indicated that they are spending more on
channel seepage identification, measurement and remediation than the
estimated cost of water lost and other impacts of seepage from the
channel.
¨ The average expenditure on channel seepage identification, measurement
and remediation is approximately 60% of the estimated cost of water lost
and other impacts of seepage from the channel

34
¨ Remediation works accounts for 61% of the monies spent on channel
seepage, with monitoring and investigation contributing 35%.

Channel Seepage Measurement Techniques

¨ Cost and speed are considered the most important criteria in channel
seepage assessment.
¨ Technical accuracy is considered of lesser importance.
¨ Seepage identification (visual, piezometers) rather than quantification
techniques dominate channel seepage assessment methods.

Channel Seepage Remediation

¨ The majority of authorities do less than 5 km of remediation works per
year.

Demand for Guidelines

¨ The majority of authorities believe that there is insufficient information
and/or expertise on techniques for seepage identification and
measurement.
¨ There is a strong demand for guidelines on channel seepage identification
and measurement

Inconsistencies in Survey Responses

Another significant feature of the survey results was the apparent
inconsistencies within and between surveys. This suggests that
understanding of channel seepage issues and the approach to addressing
them is ad-hoc for many authorities. Some of the main inconsistencies
recognised include:

¨ A plot of confidence in seepage estimate against work undertaken to

assess channel seepage shows that the amount of work undertaken on
channel seepage assessment is only weakly correlated with the
confidence of the Authority in their seepage estimate. Two important
conclusions can be drawn from the plot:
1. An increase in the amount of seepage assessment did not result in
clear gains in an understanding of seepage rates, suggesting a lack of
success, and a lack of direction in channel seepage measurement.
2. Ten RWAs indicated they had not conducted any on-ground
seepage assessment works in the past decade, and yet five of these
indicated they had reasonable or better confidence in their estimate of
seepage. To be reasonably confident in a seepage estimate which is
based only on system records appears to indicate a certain degree of
ignorance of channel seepage issues.
¨ Seepage identification techniques rather than quantification techniques
dominate channel seepage assessment studies, which is an indication of
the lack of real understanding of channel seepage losses.
¨ Channel seepage remediation projects are often undertaken without
quantitative analysis of seepage. Qualitative techniques (particularly visual
inspection and piezometric surveys) are the main means by which
35
 seepage sites are targeted for remediation. This is a less than ideal
approach to selecting remediation sites which is unlikely to provide the
best return for dollars expended. The failure to clearly establish cost-
benefit aspects of remediation contradicts the priority that the value of
water lost is the major motivator for channel seepage investigations.
¨ The lack of correlation between the importance of channel seepage issues
within an RWA and a number of key parameters such as seepage rate, ML
lost to seepage and cost of seepage, is a further indication of the lack of a
logical and systemic approach to addressing channel seepage.
¨ Pondage tests are universally regarded as the most accurate method of
assessing channel seepage, however only one quarter of authorities (six)
use pondage tests for seepage measurement.
¨ Inconsistencies between cost of channel seepage and channel seepage
expenditure suggest an illogical approach to channel seepage
expenditure.

36
Appendix A - Copy of Survey

37
Rural Water Authority Channel Seepage Measurement Survey
Please note that the purpose of this survey is to gain a nation wide picture of the significance of channel seepage
and channel seepage measurement techniques. Information obtained from the surveys will be aggregated and
reported on at a state and national level. Raw data from individual authorities will not be presented in the results.
If you do not know the answer to a question, please provide your best estimate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Approximately what quantity of water does your Authority supply each year, on average?
__________________________ ML / yr

2. What is the total length of earthen channels within your Authority?

__________________________ km

3. What is the total length of concrete channels within your Authority?

__________________________ km

4. What percentage of water supplied by your Authority do you estimate is lost within your channel
network? (ie unaccounted for water) (please circle):

Less than 2% 2% - 5% 5% - 10% 10% - 15% 15% - 20% 20% - 25% More than 25%

5. Of the water lost within the channel network (Q4) what percentage do you estimate is lost to
seepage? (please circle):
Less than 10% 10% - 20% 20% - 30% 30% - 50% 50% - 70% 70% - 90% More than 90%

6. What level of confidence do you have in the above estimate (Q5)? (please circle):

Very Low Low Reasonable High Very High

Confidence

7. How importantly are channel seepage issues regarded within your Authority? (please circle):
Not a Priority Low Average High Very High
at all Priority Priority Priority Priority
(Not an issue facing the (Within top 20 issues (Within top 10 issues (Within top 3-5 issues (Top 1-2 issues facing the
organisation) facing the organisation) facing the organisation) facing the organisation) organisation)

8. What annual cost estimate would you assign to channel seepage within your Authority (land
damage and loss of water)? (please circle):

Less than $10,000 - $50,000 - $100,000 - $250,000 - More than

DON’T KNOW
$10,000 $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000

Please indicate an approximate breakdown of these costs:

_____ % Loss of water
_____ % Land damage / degradation
_____ % Other (please specify)

9. Approximately how much land is directly degraded by channel seepage / leakage? (ie
waterlogging and/ or salinisation) (please circle):

Less than 1 - 10 Ha 10 – 20 Ha 20 – 50 Ha 50 – 100 Ha More than 100 DON’T KNOW

1 Ha Ha

38
10. Approximately how much money does your Authority annually spend on channel seepage issues?
(please circle):

Less than $10,000 – $30,000 – $50,000 – $100,000 – $150,000 – $250,000 – More than
$10,000 $30,000 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000

How is this money spent? (please indicate approximate percentage distribution)

_____ % Investigation / Assessment
_____ % Monitoring
_____ % Channel seepage remediation
_____ % Community education
_____ % Threat of litigation
_____ % Other (please describe)……………………………………………………….

11. Please rank in order of importance the problems associated with channel seepage within your
Authority? (1 – greatest problem; 7 – least problem)
_____ Financial loss to Authority
_____ Economic loss of commodity to community/state/nation
_____ Regional contribution to watertable rise
_____ Local contribution to watertable rise and land salinisation / degradation
_____ Community perception
_____ Threat of litigation
_____ Other (please describe)…………………………………………………….….

12. How much work has been undertaken in the past 10 years to assess channel seepage issues (ie
estimating losses, identifying priority areas etc). (please circle):
No Assessment Minimal Assessment Some Assessment Significant Assessment Extensive Assessment
No assessment made of Estimates of channel 1 - 3 site specific 3 – 5 site specific seepage More than 5 site specific
channel seepage losses seepage system losses seepage studies studies undertaken seepage studies
based on records undertaken undertaken

13. In your opinion, is your organisation devoting sufficient time and resources to the following
channel seepage issues?
Channel Seepage Identification Y / N (Please circle) - If no, please explain
………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Channel Seepage Measurement / Quantification Y / N (Please circle) - If no, please explain
………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Channel Seepage Remediation Y / N (Please circle) - If no, please explain
………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Management of Channel Seepage Effects Y / N (Please circle) - If no, please explain
………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Community Education Y / N (Please circle) - If no, please explain
………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
39
 14. If seepage measurements have been made, please indicate the techniques which have been
used to quantify / identify channel seepage within your Authority, by completing the following table.

Used Currently Perceived Relative Cost1 Satisfaction Comments

Techniques in past Used Accuracy (please circle) with Outcome2 (eg ease of interpretation of
(please circle) results, where method most
(please (please circle)
tick) useful, if results were quantitative
(please tick) or qualitative, advan. / disadvan.)
Note: Compared to other techniques

Estimated from Records

(ie unaccounted for water / Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.
district water balance)

Visual Inspection Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.

Inflow – Outflow Studies Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.

Aerial Photographs Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.

Pondage Tests Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.
Piezometric Survey
(groundwater bores & use of Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.
Darcian principle)
Groundwater Bores &
Water Chemistry Analysis Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat. Very S.
(eg isotope analysis)
Seepage Meters

Idaho Seepage Meter Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

Constant Head
Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.
Permeameter

Disc Permeameter Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

Other………………….. Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.
(please specify)
Geophysical Surveys

EM34 Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

EM31 Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

EM38 Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

Electrical Resistivity Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

Other………………….. Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.
(please specify)

Soil Mapping Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

Remote Sensing
(eg satellite imagery) Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

Channel Seepage
Modelling / Application of Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.
Mathematical Equations
Other (Please specify)

………………………. Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

………………………. Low Med High Low Med High Not S. Sat Very S.

1. Note: Low costs: $0 - $200 / km channel; Med. costs: $200 - $500 / km channel; & High costs: > $500 / km
channel

2. Not S. = Not satisfied

S. = Satisfied
Very S. = Very satisfied
40
15. Please list the techniques which have been preferred by your Authority for seepage measurement
and / or detection, (in order of preference), and use the space underneath to briefly describe why this
technique has been favoured:

1.____________________________

………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………..............................

2.____________________________

………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………..............................

3.____________________________

………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………….............................
16. List one or two techniques which you have found to be the least successful? Why?
……………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………......
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
17. What are the main criteria used by your Authority for selection of a technique? Please rank in order
of importance from 1 - 6 (1 - most important, 6 - least important):

Cost

Familiarity (ie Historical Reasons)

Speed / Broad Coverage

Technical Accuracy

Operational Constraints

Other (please specify)____________________________________

41
18. Has an attempt been made to extrapolate the results of one seepage trial across a larger area? If
so, what was the technique and how was the extrapolation conducted?
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………….......
……………………………………………………………………………...
……………………………………………………………………………...
……………………………………………………………………………...
19. Have studies been conducted by your Authority to determine the accuracy of various seepage
measurement techniques? (ie have channel seepage studies been conducted for the sake of studying
the technique rather than primarily investigating a particular channel?)

Y / N (Please circle) If yes, please tick the techniques which were trialed:
Inflow-Outflow Studies Seepage Meters (please specify
type)……………………………………..
Pondage Tests
Geophysical Techniques (please specify
type)………………………..
Aerial Photographs

Piezometric Survey Soil Mapping

Remote Sensing (please specify

Water Chemistry Analysis type)…………………………………….

Visual Inspection Modelling / Mathematical Equations

Other (please specify)……………………………………………........

20. What is the approximate total length of channel that is annually remediated / lined within your
Authority?
_________________ km/yr Don’t know

21. What is the approximate total area of channel that is annually remediated / lined within your
Authority?
_________________ m2/yr Don’t know

22. Are attempts generally made to assess reductions in seepage / leakage after remediation works
have been conducted?

Y / N (Please circle) If yes, please tick the techniques which were trialed:

Inflow-Outflow Studies Seepage Meters (please specify

type)……………………………………..
Pondage Tests
Geophysical Techniques (please specify
type)………………………..
Aerial Photographs

Piezometric Survey Soil Mapping

Remote Sensing (please specify

Water Chemistry Analysis type)…………………………………….

Visual Inspection Modelling / Mathematical Equations

Other (please specify)…………………………………………………….

42
23. Do you think that there is sufficient information / expertise available to assist in identifying and
measuring channel seepage?
Y/ N (please circle) If no please briefly describe the areas in which deficiencies exist:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………..........................
.........................................................................................................................................................

24. Would a set of guidelines presenting a systematic approach to channel seepage measurement be
useful for this Authority?
Y / N (Please circle) If yes, what type of information should such guidelines contain?:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………......................
(Please complete on back of sheet if insufficient space provided)

25. Please use this space to provide any additional comments you see as applicable to this survey.
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
(Please complete on back of sheet if insufficient space provided)

26. Please list any reports that have been produced relating to channel seepage identification /
measurement or remediation. (If possible a photocopy of the executive summary or conclusions /
recommendations and reference list of the report would be greatly appreciated):

¨ ………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
¨ ………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
¨ ………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
¨ ………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
¨ ………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
(Please complete list on back of sheet if insufficient space provided)

43
27. Would you like to receive a copy of the survey results? (Y/N):………….

For our records, and should the need arise to follow up a particular question in the survey, please
indicate your name, position within the Authority, and contact details:

NAME: ………………………………………………………………………………….…
POSITION: ….………………………………………………………………………….…
CONTACT PHONE NO.: ……..……………………………………………………….…
E-MAIL ADDRESS.: …………..……………………………………………………….…

Thankyou for taking the time to complete this survey. Please post in the stamped and self-
addressed envelope provided. If you have requested a copy of the results, they will be sent
following collation and reporting.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY ASPECT OF THIS SURVEY, PLEASE DO NOT
HESITATE TO CONTACT US (DETAILS BELOW):

Stephen Parsons (Survey Coordinator)

Sinclair Knight Merz
PO Box 2500
Malvern VIC 3144

Ph: (03) 9248 3210

Email: [email protected]

OR

Chris McAuley (Channel Seepage Project Manager)

Sinclair Knight Merz
PO Box 2500
Malvern VIC 3144

Ph: (03) 9248 3320

Mobile: 0418 107 279
Email: [email protected]

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE OVERALL CHANNEL SEEPAGE

MEASUREMENT PROJECT PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT TEAM MANAGER, PETER
JACKSON.

Peter Jackson (Channel Seepage Project Manager)

Manager, Technical Services
Wimmera Mallee Water
PO Box 19
Horsham VIC 3402

Ph: (03) 5362 0217

Fax: (03) 5362 6192
E-mail: [email protected]

44
Appendix B - Graphs of Channel Seepage Importance to RWAs

Figure B.1: Importance of Channel Seepage Issues Vs Seepage Rate

16.0

14.0

12.0
Seepage Rate (%)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0 2 points

2 points
2.0
2 points

0.0 0.6 1.6 2.6 3 .6 4.6

Not a priority Low priority Average priority High priority

Importance of Channel Seepage Issues within RWA

Figure B.2: Importance of Channel Seepage Issues Vs GL Delivered/Yr

10000

1000
GL Supplied Per Year

100

10

1 0.6 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.6

Not a priority Low priority Average priority High priority

Importance of Channel Seepage Issues within RWA

45
Figure B.3: Importance of Channel Seepage Issues Vs ML Lost to
Seepage per Year

1,000,000

100,000
ML Lost to Seepage Per Year

10,000

1,000

100

10 0.6 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.6

Not a priority Low priority Average priority High priority

Importance of Channel Seepage Issues within RWA

Figure B.4: Importance of Channel Seepage Issues Vs Estimated Cost

of Channel Seepage

1,000,000
Estimated Annual Cost of Channel Seepage ($)

3 points

100,000

2 points 2 points

10,000

2 points

1,000 0.6 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.6

Not a priority Low priority Average priority High priority

Importance of Channel Seepage Issues within RWA

46
“Current Knowledge of Channel Seepage Issues and Measurement in the
Australian Rural Water Industry”
Prepared on behalf of ANCID by:

Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.

ABN 37 001 024 095
590 Orrong Road
Armadale VIC Australia 3143
PO Box 2500
Malvern VIC Australia 3144
Telephone: +61 2 9248 3100
Facsimile: +61 2 9248 3364
http://www.skm.com.au

I:\wcms\WC01312\020\rep\r05sgpsv.doc

47