HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)

Published online 30 January 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10142

The performance of rainwater tanks for stormwater retention

and water supply at the household scale: an empirical study
Matthew J. Burns,1* Tim D. Fletcher,2 Hugh P. Duncan,2,3 Belinda E. Hatt,1 Anthony R. Ladson1,2
and Christopher J. Walsh2
1
Department of Civil Engineering and Monash Water for Liveability, Building 60, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
2
Department of Resource Management and Geography, The University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
3
Melbourne Water Corporation, 990 La Trobe Street, Docklands, Victoria, Australia

Abstract:
Urban stormwater run-off degrades the ecological condition of streams. The use of rainwater tanks to supplement water supply
can reduce the frequency and volume of urban stormwater run-off that is otherwise conveyed directly to streams via conventional
stormwater drainage systems. Few studies, however, have examined the use of tanks in the context of managing flow regimes for
stream protection, with most focussed uniquely on their water conservation benefits. We used measured tank water level data to
assess the performance of 12 domestic rainwater tanks against the dual criteria of their ability to (i) reduce potable mains water
usage and (ii) retain run-off from rainfall events and thus reduce the volume and frequency of stormwater run-off. We found that
five households relied almost entirely on tank water. Three of the tanks achieved stormwater retention performance approaching
that of the same area of pre-developed land, although nine did not – a consequence of limited demand and small tank capacity.
Our results suggest that tank water usage can result in substantial reductions in mains water use, if regular and sufficiently large
domestic demands are connected to tanks. In many cases, such demands will also result in the best stormwater retention
performance. Our results highlight an opportunity to design tank systems to achieve multiple objectives. Application of similar
analyses in different locations will help to optimize tanks for simultaneous water supply and stormwater retention purposes.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS Stormwater; streams; urbanization; water conservation

Received 4 April 2013; Accepted 27 December 2013

INTRODUCTION Rainwater tanks can also help mitigate impacts of

urbanization on streams. When urban stormwater run-off
The use of rainwater tanks has the potential to simulta-
is conveyed directly to streams via conventional stormwater
neously address a number of social, economic and
drainage systems, the ecological health of streams can be
environmental problems. For some cities, pressures on
severely degraded (Walsh and Kunapo, 2009). This
existing potable mains supplies (e.g. densification and
degradation occurs as a result of both altered flow regimes
population growth) often result in shortfalls or projected
and reduced in-stream water quality (Walsh et al., 2005).
shortfalls of supply. The use of tanks can offset draws on
Although technologies to treat the quality of urban run-off
potable mains water supplies (Mikkelsen et al., 1999,
have advanced rapidly over recent decades (e.g. biofiltration,
Mitchell et al., 2007, Gardner and Vieritz, 2010, Khastagir
Bratieres et al., 2008), these more recent advances to
and Jayasuriya, 2010, Campisano and Modica, 2012) and
stormwater management do not restore the natural flow
thus delay the need to augment potable supplies. Urban
regime (Burns et al., 2012b). Burns et al. (2012b) proposed
densification typically increases flood risks, which have
an approach termed flow-regime management that aims to
been commonly managed by increasing the capacity of
restore or protect natural hydrologic processes at small
existing conventional stormwater drainage systems.
scales, with the goal of restoring both the flow regimes and
Rainwater tanks can help avoid such drainage modifications
water quality closer to the natural conditions at the
by providing distributed retention storage throughout the
catchment scale. In urban landscapes, this means limiting
catchment (Kim and Han, 2008, Burns et al., 2010).
the frequency and volume of urban stormwater run-off that is
conveyed directly to streams and preserving an appropriate
*Correspondence to: Matthew J. Burns, Department of Resource
Management and Geography, The University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie
quality and pattern of baseflows.
Street, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. The use of retention systems (e.g. rainwater tanks) can
E-mail: Matthew.Burns@unimelb.edu.au assist in managing the frequency and volume of stormwater

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 RAINWATER TANKS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION AND WATER SUPPLY
run-off from a site, as they retain impervious run-off
generated during rain events. However, if the amount of run-
off generated is more than the amount that can be stored,
run-off is delivered to streams through the stormwater
network, contributing to negative environmental impacts.
We denote the sum of available system storage capacity as
equivalent initial loss – expressed in depth of rainfall
retained before overflows occur. Consider the following
example: the equivalent initial loss for a completely
impervious site with no retention system would simply be
the initial loss (or initial abstraction) for the impervious
surface (typically 0.5 mm, e.g. Coombes, 2002). If instead
the site drained to a tank that had 5 mm of storage available
before a rainfall event started, then the equivalent initial loss
would be 5.5 mm. In this example, equivalent initial loss is
primarily limited by the available tank storage capacity,
which is controlled by the interactions between inflows,
usage, tank capacity and outflows.
The equivalent initial loss performance of a retention
system (given the impervious area it drains) at a given site
can be compared with the natural initial loss of the same
site prior to the development (i.e. with natural vegetation
and soil conditions). The available initial loss of a site is
time dependent and is driven by climatic variables
(primarily rainfall and evapotranspiration). Such a site
will have higher initial loss when soil moisture is lower
than in the wetter months when soils can be near
saturation (Western et al., 2001). Other region-specific
factors that control initial loss include soil type and depth,
slope and vegetative cover. For example, Hill et al.
(1996) showed that the median initial loss of 22 non-
urban catchments (forested and rural) in South-Eastern
Australia was 25 mm (per rainfall event). Thus, to
replicate pre-urban conditions for a retention system
located in South-Eastern Australia, the equivalent initial
loss target would be 25 mm.
The equivalent initial loss of rainwater tank systems has
not previously been assessed in this way. Many tank studies
deal with only water supply storage–yield–reliability
relationships, often relying entirely on modelled demands
(Mitchell, 2007, Seo et al., 2012), while Petrucci et al.
(2012) explore retention performance with little emphasis
on water supply behaviour. A few studies have explored the
simultaneous water supply and stormwater run-off retention
performance of tanks using observed demands (Coombes
et al., 2003, Knights et al., 2012, van der Sterren et al., 2012,
DeBusk et al., 2013), but have not related tank storage to the
initial loss of the pre-development state.
Tank demands are typically inferred from demand data
obtained from mains water use. Estimates are usually
derived from the relationships between water demand,
climatic and social variables (Aitken et al., 1991, Coombes
and Kuczera, 2003, Gato et al., 2007) and are generally
representative of large populations (e.g. a suburb). Other
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
153
studies have estimated tank demands based on studies of
individual end-uses (Wilkenfeld, 2006), but again derived
from mains water data. These approaches do not account for
potential differences between people’s use of tank water and
their use of mains water. Some studies suggest that people
who voluntarily install tanks are likely to use tank water and
mains water differently from those who have mandated
tanks (Gardiner, 2009, Gardiner, 2010). The modelling of
voluntarily-installed tanks would be more accurate if it
were based on observed tank water-use data, such that
variability and the influence of human behaviour are taken
into account.
In this paper, we assess the performance of 12 voluntarily-
installed tanks connected to single (detached) households,
against the dual criteria of their ability to (i) reduce potable
mains water usage and (ii) to retain run-off from rainfall
events and thus mimic the natural initial loss of the pre-
development state. We demonstrate that tanks are capable of
simultaneously reducing potable water usage while reducing
the frequency and volume of stormwater run-off to streams,
provided regular and sufficient large domestic demands are
connected to tanks. However, our results show replicating
the natural stormwater retention performance of a site is
difficult, highlighting the importance of appropriately
designing rainwater harvesting systems for the dual purposes
of stream protection and water conservation.
Our paper is structured around addressing the follow-
ing questions:
1. Daily tank water use: What is the observed water use
from tanks, and how does it vary between and within
households?
2. Comparison with predicted usage: How does observed
water use from tanks compare with observed and
modelled water use from the mains supply?
3. Tank equivalent initial loss: How does the equivalent
initial loss of domestic tanks compare with a natural
distribution of initial losses?
METHODS
Tank selection and instrumentation
The study area was a small, peri-urban catchment in
South-Eastern Australia that is currently the focus of a
research study where the objective is to restore the health of
a degraded stream by retrofitting stormwater retention,
treatment and infiltration systems throughout the catchment
(the Little Stringybark Creek Project; Fletcher et al., 2011).
From 2009–2012, 195 tanks were installed on private land
parcels throughout the catchment (pers. comm. Darren Bos,
The University of Melbourne). Within this small geographic
location, we monitored 12 different tank configurations
(Table I) selected after a period of community engagement.
Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
154 M. J. BURNS ET AL.

Table I. Properties of monitored households

Reported external
Tank Impervious Internal demands External demands demand behaviour
capacity area draining connected to connected to Garden over monitoring Missing
Household (l) to tank (m2)a Occupancyb rainwater tankc rainwater tankd sizee (m2) period data (%)

1 3000 35 3 T G 18 Minimal G 18
2 5400 71 2 C, T G 200 Minimal G 2
3 5000 130 2 C, T W, G 600 Minimal W and G 52
4 26000 374 2 C, T W, G, P 3500 Minimal W and P 8
Moderate G
5 5500 167 2.0 C, T G 80 Minimal G 6
6 5500 91 2 C, T, H G 125 No G 2
7 22500 466 3.4 All G 300 Minimal G 37
8 25000 366 2.5 All (except drinking) G 800 Minimal G 2
9 18000 199 2 All None 20 No G 10
10 28000 183 3 All G 240 Minimal G 10
11 9000 316 3 All G 216 Minimal G 7
12 18200 229 4 All (except drinking) G 200 Minimal G 12
a
These areas were calculated primarily using aerial imagery (NearMap; http://www.nearmap.com/) and ground-truthing.
b
Over the monitoring period, the occupancy for some households changed. For these cases, the average occupancy, weighted by time, over the
monitoring period is reported.
c
Internal demand abbreviations. T = toilet flushing, C = clothes washing and H = hot water usage.
d
External demand abbreviations. G = garden watering, W = car washing and P = swimming pool top-up.
e
Watered garden area is based on estimates from householders.

During April and May 2010, we installed an Odyssey
capacitance depth logger (www.odysseydatarecording.
com) in each tank to continuously monitor water level.
We opted for these loggers because they are precise,
accurate (±1 mm over their full recording length) and
unobtrusive. Each logger was calibrated prior to instal-
lation (Dataflow Systems Pty Ltd, 2012). We housed each
logger in a polyvinyl chloride pipe that protruded from
the top of each tank. Each logger was set to record water
level every 6 min from 20:00 h on the day it was installed.
During logger installation, the following characteristics
relating to each tank configuration were measured: tank
capacity, tank cross-sectional area and impervious area
draining to tank. Tank cross-sectional area was used in
the derivation of tank water volume time series. We also
recorded connected demands, garden size, occupancy and
surveyed external demand behaviour for each property.
Data were downloaded from each logger for approxi-
mately 2 years (until March 2012), every 2 months, to
minimise disturbance to landowners. During each visit,
we undertook tank maintenance (e.g. removal of leaves in
the tank inlet screen). In September 2011, the loggers
were recalibrated and this second calibration was found to
be consistent with the first.
Data analysis
Tank water level and volume. For each household, the
calibrated depth data were plotted against time. The
proportion of data that was missing as a result of flat
batteries or logger malfunction was ≤10% in all but four
households (Table I). We then derived (using cubic spline
interpolation) 6-min time series of calibrated depth data
for each tank over the entire monitoring period. This was
carried out to infill some short periods of missing data and
to make the timestamps consistent for all tanks. Time
series of tank water volume (in litres) were derived for
each household by multiplying tank cross-sectional area
by the tank water level time series for most tanks. For
some tanks, the cross-sectional area changed near the
overflow level, in which case we derived functions that
related tank cross-sectional area to tank water level.
Daily tank water use. Water use was analysed using
dry-weather records, as during rain, volume changes
could be affected by inflows. We used 6-min data from a
rainfall gauge (station 229690; Melbourne Water, www.
melbournewater.com.au) ~3 km from our study area.
Daily rainfall records from this gauge over the study
period were highly correlated (r = 0.96) with those from a
gauge within the study area that was read daily over the
study period (pers. comm. Bob Firth, Mt Evelyn resident).
This manually-read gauge was used to further censor the
tank use data.
For each household, we derived daily changes in tank
water volume from the 6-min time series of tank water
volume. If the rainfall on a particular day was ≤0.5 mm
(typical roof initial loss; Coombes, 2002), then we
accepted those days as potential candidates to use to
estimate household water use. Daily rainfall records at the
primary gauge of ≤0.5 mm that coincided with an

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
 RAINWATER TANKS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION AND WATER SUPPLY
increase in tank volume, and a rainfall record of >0.5 mm
at the manual gauge, were assumed to indicate
incidents of isolated rain and volume records for these
incidents were excluded. Several small increases in
volume on days with ≤0.5 rain recorded at either
gauge were assumed to result from logger measure-
ment error and were set to zero. A small number of
events where there was a spurious increase in volume
(1.5% of all daily records; total volume of 2170 l)
could not be confidently reconciled, and were also
excluded from the data analysis. These unreconciled
increases could result from the accumulated volume of
morning dew inflows or condensation from air
conditioners draining to tanks. This validation process
resulted in a time series representative of daily tank usage,
free of other influences.
Proportion of use and comparison with mains. We
compared mean daily tank usage with mean daily potable
mains water usage for each household. Quarterly
volumetric potable mains water usage was collected (in
confidence and with anonymity) for each household in
conjunction with the local water authority. Mean daily
potable mains usage for each household was calculated as
the sum of all quarterly volumetric potable mains water
usage divided by the total number of billing days over the
monitoring period.
We then compared the measured tank water use with
studies that have estimated the water usage of individual
end-uses. In a study based on ~100 households and
conducted by the local water authority, Roberts et al.
(2011) measured how much mains water was used for
various end-uses as a function of household occupancy.
This study found that the average toilet flush volume
could be estimated using Equation (1).
T ¼ 19 * O; (1)
where T is toilet flushing in units of L.d-1.household-1 and
O is household occupancy.
Roberts et al. (2011) also found that the average
number of weekly clothes washing loads could be
estimated using Equation (2).
CW ¼ 2:62 * lnðOÞ þ 1:87; (2)
where CW is the number of weekly clothes washing loads
and O is household occupancy.
To explain how we used the relationships of Roberts
et al. (2011) to estimate theoretical daily water usage for
each household, consider the following example: the
occupancy of Household 2 is two and its tank is
connected to supply the internal demands of toilet
flushing and clothes washing. By firstly assuming that
the average water use per load of clothes washing is 110 l
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
155
(Roberts et al., 2011), Equations (1) and (2) can be used
to calculate theoretical daily water usage:
W ¼ ð19*2Þ þ ð½2:62*lnð2Þ þ 1:87*110Þ=7 ¼ 96 ; (3)
where W is theoretical daily water usage for Household
2 (l/d).
Our estimates did not include any external demands
because all households reported only occasional external
water usage during the monitoring period (Table I). Water
demand estimates from Roberts et al. (2011) for
Households 7–12 were based on total internal demand.
The theoretical daily water usage was then compared with
the observed values calculated in Daily tank water use.
Tank equivalent initial loss. Equivalent initial loss at
time t (Rt) was calculated as follows:
Rt ¼ ðV  St Þ þ I; (4)
where V is tank capacity (mm), St is the volume of water
stored in the tank (mm) at time t and I is the initial loss
provided by the connected roof (set to 0.5 mm based on
Coombes, 2002). V and St were converted from units of
volume to depth by dividing by connected roof area.
We then calculated probability deciles of equivalent
initial loss for each household from the equivalent initial
loss time series (Figure 3) to summarize the range of
observed behaviour. Deciles were calculated over three
time classes of equivalent initial loss data (as in Figure 3):
(I) all records, (II) summer only (December–March) and
(III) winter only (June–September). For each time class,
the deciles of equivalent initial loss were averaged over
the 12 households. This resulted in three equivalent initial
loss curves, one for each time class.
Similar curves were then derived for the long-term pre-
development state using data from Hill et al. (1997)
(Figure 3). Hill et al. (1996) calculated the probability
deciles of initial loss for each of their 22 non-urban
catchments in South-Eastern Australia, standardized each
probability distribution curve by its median value, then
averaged all curves to derive an annual probability
distribution of standardized initial loss. We have scaled
their standardized curve back to their observed median
initial loss of 25 mm for comparison with our urban data.
We have also used their seasonal scaling factors (1.27 and
0.73 for summer and winter, respectively) to derive separate
summer and winter distributions of pre-development initial
loss. All three pre-development curves are shown in Figure 3
for comparison with the equivalent initial loss of our
monitored tanks. We also quantified how far the
equivalent initial loss performance of individual house-
holds deviated from the pre-development condition and
related this deviation to the ratio of tank capacity to
connected roof area. Our measure of deviation was the
Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
156 M. J. BURNS ET AL.

annual median initial loss for the pre-development behavioural factors such as shower duration. Variability
condition less than the annual median equivalent initial within households was driven by a range of causes such
loss for an individual household. as fluctuations in household occupancy and recurring
large water use activities (e.g. washing days).
RESULTS
Proportion of use and comparison with predicted usage
Daily tank water use Households with at least toilet flushing, clothes
Daily tank usage varied greatly between and within washing and hot water end-uses connected to tanks
monitored households (Figure 1). Unsurprisingly, house- (e.g. Households 6 to 12; excluding 7 and 10) relied
holds with more internal demands connected to their almost entirely on tank water over the monitoring
tanks used more rainwater. Variability between house- period (Figure 2). Some households still relied to a
holds was related to household occupancy, details of large extent on mains water, even though their tanks
water using appliances (e.g. type of shower head) and never emptied, because they had problems with their

2500
Daily rainwater tank usage (litres/day)

2000

1500

1000

500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Household

Figure 1. Range of daily rainwater tank usage (l/day) for the 12 monitored households. Lower and upper hinges correspond to the 25th and 75th
percentiles (R Development Core Team, 2011). Dots = outliers (based on Tukey’s rule)

600
Total water usage (litres/day)

x
400
x x
Source
x Rainwater
Mains
x

200
x

x x x x
x

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12
Household
Figure 2. Comparison of mean daily tank usage and potable mains water usage to total water usage for each household. No comparison was made for
Household 7 because their tank was not operational for several months over the monitoring period. Also shown in this plot is theoretical daily (tank)
water usage (crosses) for each household (predicted from Roberts et al., 2011)

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
 RAINWATER TANKS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION AND WATER SUPPLY 157

100
I. All records

50

Equivalent initial loss (mm)

20

10

0.5

100
II. Summer

50
Equivalent initial loss (mm)

20

10

0.5

100
III. Winter

50
Equivalent initial loss (mm)

20

10

0.5
0 25 50 75 100
Percentage of time exceeded
Figure 3. I. Equivalent initial loss (expressed probabilistically in units of millimetre, averaged over the 12 monitored tanks) over all records (black line). A
range of equivalent initial loss is indicated (grey shading) between ±1 standard deviation of the mean. The dashed grey line is a distribution of initial loss that is
representative of the pre-development situation (i.e. forested and rural catchments) over the long-term in South-Eastern Australia (Hill et al., 1997). II and III.
Similar to I equivalent initial loss over summer (II) and winter (III) months only

pumps (e.g. Households 7 and 10). Smaller reductions
(23 to 69%) in potable mains water usage were observed for
households using tank water for toilet flushing and clothes
washing, but not hot water (i.e. Households 2 to 5). Tank
water only accounted for 10% of the total water usage for
a household with one toilet connected to the tank
(Household 1).
Finally, we found that the daily tank usage can be
reasonably well-predicted from theoretical daily water
usage, at least in some situations. Mean daily tank usage
for the majority of households (e.g. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11)
was within ±30% of theoretical estimates (Figure 2). This
was not the case for all other households (e.g. 1, 4, 10, and
12), with predicted water use within ±43–134% of actual
tank usage, suggesting that they may use water from their
tanks differently than if they were using potable water.
Tank equivalent initial loss
Most tanks did not mimic the natural pre-developed
initial loss over the monitoring period (Figure 3), and thus

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
158 M. J. BURNS ET AL.

overflow from tanks frequently occurred because they retained. There were tanks that drained entire roofs that
were not emptied often enough. Seasonality did not resulted in performance that approached the ideal target of
significantly influence equivalent initial loss performance 25 mm (Households 9 and 12; Figure 4). These tanks were
(Figure 3). Tanks still overflowed frequently even in the connected to all internal end-uses and featured large tanks
hot, dry summer months, when it might be expected that relative to connected area. Other tanks connected to all
garden watering from the tanks would be high. This could internal end-uses did not perform ideally because: (i) tank
be explained by the wet conditions that predominated usage was small relative to connected roof area (Household
during the monitoring period (i.e. the mean annual rainfall 8; Figure 4) or (ii) tank capacity was small relative to
over the study period was 1312 mm/year compared with connected roof area (Household 11; Figure 4) or (iii) tanks
the long-term average of 970 mm/year), and householder were frequently not operational (Households 7 and 10;
reported minimal external tank water use. Figure 4). Tanks connected to only a few internal end-uses
The equivalent initial loss performance of a few tank (Households 2 to 6) did not perform ideally because tank
configurations (Households 1, 9 and 12) deviated less usage per connected roof area was relatively small
than 15 mm from the pre-development condition (Figure 4).
(Figure 4). A common design element of these configura-
tions was large tanks relative to connected area (Figure 4).
For example, a 3000 l tank draining a small roof (35 m2) and DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
connected to one toilet (Household 1) resulted in close to Daily tank water use
ideal equivalent initial loss performance. However, it should
We found that tank water use can be highly variable
be noted that, while the performance of this tank and its
between and within households, and such variability
connected roof area was close to the pre-developed
should be accounted for in demand models. Many studies
condition, the entire roof was not connected to the tank,
assume that demand is constant (Mitchell et al., 2007,
thus run-off from the remaining roof area (119 m2) was not
Khastagir and Jayasuriya, 2010). But if we want to
construct a probability distribution of equivalent initial
loss, a probabilistic treatment of demand will provide
I more useful information (House-Peters and Chang, 2011).
600
Mean tank usage (L/day)

7
Proportion of use and comparison with predicted usage
400
8
We showed that some households significantly reduced
9 11
their potable mains water consumption using tanks.
12
4 However, most households had the opportunity to use
200 10 significantly more tank water and this would have
6 3
2
5
improved the equivalent initial loss performance of their
1 tanks. Although increased tank water usage would reduce
0 tank supply reliability, this is not of great concern where
100 200 300 400 potable mains backup is available.
Connected roof area (m2) Our results confirm the observation of Collins (2008)
II that large, regular demands are needed to achieve useful
0
outcomes, both in terms of potable water substitution and
Deviation from natural (mm)

−5 in terms of run-off retention. Although a backup supply of

potable water remains necessary to achieve suitable levels
−10 of supply security, our work shows the likely reductions
12 1 9 in potable water consumption that can be achieved in
−15 practice with current consumer behaviour for a range of
6
8 2
tank configurations and end-use scenarios. Similarly,
−20 11 3 7
10
stormwater policy makers should consider end-uses in
5 4
−25
specifying rainwater harvesting recommendations (and
40 80 120
incentive programmes) for households in order to
Tank capacity (L) / connected roof area (m2) maximise run-off retention outcomes.
Daily tank usage was reasonably well predicted by the
Figure 4. I. Mean daily tank usage plotted against connected roof area. II. previous studies concerning potable mains water usage of
A measure of how far equivalent initial loss deviates from the pre-
development situation (solid grey line at Y = 0) plotted against tank individual end-uses (Roberts et al., 2011). The weaker
capacity divided by connected roof area predictions of daily tank usage for some households are in

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
 RAINWATER TANKS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION AND WATER SUPPLY
part related to household water use behaviour. Gardiner
(2010) identified three attitudinal groups of tank owners:
‘environmentalists’, ‘my independent supply’ and ‘not
really interested’. ‘Environmentalists’ have a tendency to
conserve all natural resources. Households that used less
tank water than our predictions might align to this attitudinal
group. ‘My independent supply’ tank owners primarily use
their tanks for garden watering, especially during periods of
water restrictions. These tank owners would likely irrigate a
garden with more water compared with a household with no
tank. Most of the households monitored in this study did not
use their tanks for garden watering. They may therefore
align with the ‘not really interested’ attitudinal group
described by Gardiner (2010). This group of people are
likely to use tank water in much the same way they would
use mains water, partly because people have the perception
that tank water quality is high (Ryan et al., 2009). This
finding could suggest why most of our predictions of daily
tank usage were reasonably accurate.
Tank equivalent initial loss
The equivalent initial loss performance of most
monitored tanks was not close to natural conditions,
reflecting that most systems could have benefited from
further optimization to improve performance. For most
tanks, equivalent initial loss was constrained by limited
demand and/or small tank capacity. Equivalent initial loss
can be improved by increasing demand, by releasing
trickles of tank water as passive irrigation to vegetated
areas (Burns et al., 2012a) or by directing overflow to
infiltration systems (Hunt et al., 2006, Daly et al., 2012).
For example, Burns et al. (2012b) showed that a
retention strategy comprising a tank overflowing to a
vegetated infiltration system restored the equivalent
initial loss of a typical urban land parcel to near natural
conditions. In this example, the losses from the
infiltration system added to the demands on the tank
to increase the total effective demand on the system.
From a water balance perspective, the total effective
demand needs to be large enough to compensate for all
the impervious run-off from the land parcel. In
addition, all imperviousness within land parcels that
are drained to stormwater drainage systems should be
dealt with to protect streams, meaning that tanks
draining only part of the roof area will be suboptimal,
unless the roof areas not connected to a tank overflow
to other retention or infiltration systems. Instances of
poor performance of the systems (e.g. Household 10)
had a significant impact on performance. Maintenance
of household-scale rainwater harvesting systems can be
poor and is largely due to limited expertise and
awareness (Heyworth et al., 2006). Despite this, the
use of distributed systems such as household-scale
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
159
rainwater tanks ensures that the risk is decentralized,
thus failure of an individual system does not have
widespread impacts (Bertrand et al., 2010).
Knowledge gaps and further work
This study synthesises climate and behavioural in-
fluences on use of stored water systems and is thereby
specific to the study location. Hence, similar studies
conducted in other regions of the world will be necessary
to understand how the societal and climatic factors may
interact to influence the ability of rainwater harvesting
systems to simultaneously provide alternative water
supply and protect streams from stormwater run-off.
Additional research is also required to test the
hypothesis that the use of retention strategies (i.e. tanks)
at small scales can assist in restoring natural flow regimes
at larger scales downstream (Burns et al., 2012b). It could
be possible that there are optimal scales and arrangements
of tanks and other retention strategies. This paper
provides a first step towards that objective by providing
probabilistic estimates of equivalent initial loss at the
land-parcel scale.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Melbourne Water and the
Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects scheme
(project number LP0883610). Tim Fletcher is supported by
the Council’s Future Fellowship scheme (FT100100144).
Peter Roberts is thanked for his insightful comments over
various discussions. The anonymous landowners who
participated in our study are recognized for their engage-
ment with this research. This research was conducted with
ethical standards consistent with requirements of the
Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee
(http://www.monash.edu.au/researchoffice/human/).
REFERENCES
Aitken CK, Duncan H, McMahon TA. 1991. A cross-sectional regression
analysis of residential water demand in Melbourne, Australia. Applied
Geography 11: 157–165. DOI: 10.1016/0143-6228(91)90041-7.
Bertrand C, Lehoucq C, Bignon E, Michaud AC. 2010. How to set up a
long term management of rainwater regulation devices? Novatech 2010,
7th International Conference on Sustainable Techniques and Strategies
in Urban Water Management, Lyon, France.
Bratieres K, Fletcher TD, Deletic A, Zinger Y. 2008. Nutrient and
sediment removal by stormwater biofilters: a large-scale design
optimisation study. Water Research 42: 3930–3940. DOI: 10.1016/j.
watres.2008.06.009.
Burns MJ, Fletcher TD, Hatt BE, Ladson AR, Walsh CJ. 2010. Can
allotment-scale rainwater harvesting manage urban flood risk and
protect stream health? Novatech 2010, 7th International Conference on
Sustainable Techniques and Strategies in Urban Water Management,
Lyon, France.
Burns MJ, Fletcher TD, Duncan HP, Ladson AR, Walsh CJ. 2012a. The
stormwater retention performance of rainwater tanks at the land-parcel
Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)
160 M. J. BURNS ET AL.
scale. In: 7th International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban
Design, Wong THF, Mccarthy DT (eds.). Melbourne: Australia.
Burns MJ, Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Ladson AR, Hatt BE. 2012b.
Hydrologic shortcomings of conventional urban stormwater manage-
ment and opportunities for reform. Landscape and Urban Planning
105: 230–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.012.
Campisano A, Modica C. 2012. Optimal sizing of storage tanks for
domestic rainwater harvesting in Sicily. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 63: 9–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.03.007.
Collins R. 2008. Effectiveness of domestic rainwater tanks. Journal of the
Australian Water Association 35: 116–120.
Coombes PJ. 2002. Rainwater tanks revisited: new opportunities for urban
water cycle management. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW.
Coombes PJ, Kuczera G, Kalma JD. 2003. Economic, water quantity and
quality impacts from the use of a rainwater tank in the inner city.
Australian Journal of Water Resources 7: 111–120.
Coombes PJ, Kuczera G. 2003. Analysis of the performance of rainwater
tanks in Australian capital cities. 28th International Hydrology and
Water Resources Symposium, Wollongong, NSW. Engineers Australia.
Daly E, Deletic A, Hatt BE, Fletcher TD. 2012. Modelling of stormwater
biofilters under random hydrologic variability: a case study of a car park
at Monash University, Victoria (Australia). Hydrological Processes 26:
3416–3424. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8397.
Dataflow Systems Pty Ltd. 2012. Technical handbook for Odyssey data
logger. Christchurch, New Zealand http://www.odysseydatarecording.
com.
DeBusk KM, Hunt WF, Wright JD. 2013. Characterizing rainwater
harvesting performance and demonstrating stormwater management
benefits in the humid southeast USA. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 49(6): 1398–1411. DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12096.
Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Bos D, Nemes V, RossRakesh S, Prosser T, Hatt
B, Birch R. 2011. Restoration of stormwater retention capacity at the
allotment-scale through a novel economic instrument. Water Science
and Technology 64: 494–502. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2011.184.
Gardiner A. 2009. Domestic rainwater tanks: usage and maintenance
patterns in south east Queensland. Journal of the Australian Water
Association 36: 151–156.
Gardiner A. 2010. Do rainwater tanks herald a cultural change in
household water use? Australasian Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 17: 100–111. DOI: 10.1080/14486563.2010.9725255.
Gardner T, Vieritz A. 2010. The role of rainwater tanks in Australia in the
twenty first century. Architectural Science Review 53: 107–125. DOI:
10.3763/asre.2009.0074.
Gato S, Jayasuriya N, Roberts P. 2007. Forecasting residential water
demand: case study. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management ASCE 133: 309–319. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(2007)133:4(309).
Heyworth JS, Glonek GF, Maynard EJ, Baghurst PA, Finlay-Jones JJ.
2006. Consumption of untreated tank rainwater and gastroenteritis
among young children in South Australia. International Journal of
Epidemiology 35: 1051–1058. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyl105.
Hill PI, Maheepala UK, Mein RG, Weinmann PE. 1996. Empirical analysis of
data to derive losses for design flood estimation in south-eastern Australia.
CRC for Catchment Hydrology.
Hill PI, Mein RG, Weinmann PE. 1997. Development and testing of new
design losses for south-eastern Australia. 24th Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand.
House-Peters LA, Chang H. 2011. Urban water demand modeling: review
of concepts, methods, and organizing principles. Water Resources
Research 47(5): W05401. DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009624.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hunt WF, Jarrett AR, Smith JT, Sharkey LJ 2006. Evaluating bioretention
hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering ASCE 132: 600–608.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600).
Khastagir A, Jayasuriya N. 2010. Optimal sizing of rain water tanks for
domestic water conservation. Journal of Hydrology 381: 181–188.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.11.040.
Kim Y, Han M. 2008. Rainwater storage tank as a remedy for a local
urban flood control. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 8:
31–36. DOI: 10.2166/ws.2008.029.
Knights D, Hanley C, McAuley A. 2012. Can rainwater tanks meet
multiple sustainability objectives? An assessment of water conservation,
pollution reduction and frequent flows from rainwater tanks in Sydney’s
Marrickville LGA. In: 7th International Conference on Water Sensitive
Urban Design, Wong THF, Mccarthy DT (eds.). Melbourne: Australia.
Mikkelsen PS, Adeler OF, Albrechtsen H-J, Henze M. 1999. Collected
rainfall as a water source in Danish households - what is the potential
and what are the costs? Water Science and Technology 39: 49–56. DOI:
10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00086-4.
Mitchell VG. 2007. How important is the selection of computational
analysis method to the accuracy of rainwater tank behaviour modelling?
Hydrological Processes 21: 2850–2861. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6499.
Mitchell VG, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Hatt BE, McCarthy DT. 2007.
Achieving multiple benefits from stormwater harvesting. Water Science
and Technology 55: 135–144. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2007.103.
Petrucci G, Deroubaix J-F, de Gouvello B, Deutsch JC, Bompard P,
Tassin B. 2012. Rainwater harvesting to control stormwater runoff in
suburban areas. An experimental case-study. Urban Water Journal 9: 45–55.
DOI: 10.1080/1573062x.2011.633610.
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Roberts P, Athuraliya A, Brown A. 2011. Yarra Valley future water.
Residential water use study volume 1 - winter 2010. July 2011. Available
online: http://www.yvw.com.au/yvw/groups/public/documents/document/
yvw1003346.pdf: Yarra Valley Water.
Ryan AM, Spash CL, Measham, TG. 2009. Socio-economic and psycholog-
ical predictors of domestic grey water and rainwater collection: evidence
from Australia. Journal of Hydrology 379: 164–171. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2009.10.002.
Seo Y, Choi N-J, Park D. 2012. Effect of connecting rain barrels on the
storage size reduction. Hydrological Processes 26: 3538–3551. DOI:
10.1002/hyp.8430.
van der Sterren M, Rahman A, Dennis GR. 2012. Implications to
stormwater management as a result of lot scale rainwater tank systems:
a case study in Western Sydney, Australia. Water Science and
Technology 65: 1475–1482. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2012.033.
Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM,
Morgan RP. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and
the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society 24: 706–723. DOI: 10.1899/0887-3593(2005)024\0706:
TUSSCK\2.0.CO;2.
Walsh CJ, Kunapo J. 2009. The importance of upland flow paths in
determining urban effects on stream ecosystems. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 28: 977–990. DOI: 10.1899/08-161.1.
Western AW, Blöschl G, Grayson RB. 2001. Toward capturing
hydrologically significant connectivity in spatial patterns. Water
Resources Research 37: 83–97. DOI: 10.1029/2000WR900241.
Wilkenfeld G 2006. Water saving requirements for new residential
buildings in Victoria: options for flexible compliance. Sydney: George
Wilkenfeld and Associates Pty Ltd.
Hydrol. Process. 29, 152–160 (2015)