38 West Gippsland CMA.Pdf 1.42 Mb

21 December 2012

Executive Officer Environment and Natural Resources Committee Parliament House Spring Street East Melbourne Vic 3002 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the Inquiry into rural drainage in Victoria. Attached is our response to the specific Terms of Reference. The West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) is the delegated floodplain manager and the nominated caretaker of River Health for the South Gippsland, Latrobe and Thomson river basins. Under the Water Act 1989, the WGCMA also has enabling powers relating to regional drainage. These overlapping functions place CMAs in a unique position to address the terms of reference for this inquiry as CMAs deal with the matters of concern on a daily basis.

In preparing this response we have called on the collective experience of our Board, staff and Community Advisory Groups. With this in mind, the Committee can be confident that the WGCMA submission is a well thought through contribution based on practical experience and observations gathered over many years.

The WGCMA believes the following are key areas to consider as part of this inquiry:  The WGCMA’s role in Rural Drainage should be focused on coordinating schemes, whether these are formal or informal, with the key objective to minimise the impact to river health.

 In general the beneficiary pays principle should apply. In some instances there will be insufficient beneficiaries to make a scheme viable. In other instances a contribution from the “polluter”/upper catchment contributors should also be considered especially when urban drainage outfalls immediately into rural drainage systems.

 There will be cases where considerable investment in drainage infrastructure will be required to bring the system up to a reasonable standard which will be well beyond the reach of the beneficiary such as legacy issues like the Moe Canal. Maintenance and capital upgrades for legacy issues need to be considered at a State level.

 Clarity is needed to set and manage expectations around the functional capacity of drainage systems. Understanding drainage needs and requirements now and into the future will need to be considered especially with climate variability playing a greater role. This would work best through investment in capacity and skill building as well as physical work.

 Consideration of the impacts and dynamics between rural and urban drainage needs to be considered – they are not mutually exclusive and do impact on each other.

If you have any further questions, please contact me or Adam Dunn on 1300 094 262.

Yours Sincerely

Martin Fuller

Chief Executive Officer

WGCMA submission to the Inquiry into rural drainage in Victoria

Received from the Legislative Assembly on 10 October 2012

That, under s33 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, an inquiry into matters relating to rural drainage in Victoria (but not including irrigation drainage or regional urban and metropolitan drainage) be referred to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee for consideration and report, no later than 30 June 2013, with particular reference to:

1. The historical basis for the establishment and operation of former drainage schemes including management arrangements; 2. The status of rural drainage across Victoria, including effectiveness, regulation, ownership, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private land; 3. The benefits of rural drainage for both productive land and environment together with community expectations for rural drainage programs; 4. The impacts of rural drainage, including on other land holders and the environment including waterways, wetlands, flora, fauna and water quality; 5. Options for improved rural drainage management across Victoria, including regulation, institutional and funding arrangements, operation, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private land; and 6. The Committee’s report on the Inquiry into flood mitigation infrastructure in Victoria.

Introduction

The WGCMA is the delegated floodplain manager and the nominated caretaker of River Health in the West Gippsland Region. Under Section 199 (1) (a) of the Water Act 1989, the WGCMA also has enabling powers relating to regional drainage.

Functions of Authorities 199. Functions of Authorities

(1) An Authority other than Melbourne Water Corporation has the following functions-

(a) to provide, operate and protect drainage systems, including the drainage of water into all designated waterways and all designated land or works within its district;

The WGCMA developed a Regional Drainage Plan in 2000. This plan documented many of the issues raised in this Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and will be heavily relied on in this submission as many of the issues identified in 2000 are still relevant today. A copy of the Regional Drainage Plan is attached for your reference.

The objectives of the 2000 Regional Drainage Plan were:

1. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and Local Government in Surface Drainage Management. 2. Keep the community informed and involved in drainage management issues effecting either specific areas and/or the region as a whole. 3. Ensure that there are simple mechanisms in place for the resolution of any concerns or conflicts associated with surface drainage.

4. Develop drain performance standards to ensure that any adverse effects from surface drainage are minimised through adequate control and management of existing and new surface drainage systems. 5. Encourage community involvement in the management of drainage systems. 6. Ensure that surface drains which are controlled by the CMA, or are constructed using Commonwealth, State or CMA funds, are sustainably built and managed. 7. Document the areas:  serviced by surface drains and establish who is responsible for those drains,  requiring surface drains and the benefits associated with improving drainage in those areas, and  requiring surface drainage management plans and relative priorities for the development of these plans and implementation of surface drainage systems. 8. Ensure performance monitoring standards are developed and monitoring is undertaken to protect the environment and ensure surface drains are sustainably managed.

Over the last twelve years implementation of the Regional Drainage Plan has been limited by a lack of dedicated resourcing. The WGCMA has worked with formal drainage committees such as the Moe River Flats Drainage Committee and informal drainage management groups in order to improve drainage management. For both groups obtaining the necessary funding to do the identified works has resulted in a lack of maintenance. During the drought this lack of maintenance was not seen as a priority by landowners however the return to wetter conditions over the last two years has highlighted the need for regular ongoing works in order to achieve the communities expected level of service.

The WGCMA believes that rural drainage can be improved in West Gippsland by Government providing clarity on:

 roles and responsibilities,  the level of service expected of rural drainage including management of environmental impacts  a funding model that will achieve the agreed level of service. Where clearly identifiable beneficiaries exist they should be required to fund works and to maintain those works. Where the link to the beneficiaries is less clear then there is a role for government (either state or local) to fund the ongoing management of these systems where there is a clear public benefit.  Where there is no clear public benefit guidelines need to be developed to ensure individual landowners can perform the required works  Management of urban drainage outfalls directly into rural drainage systems.

1. The historical basis for the establishment and operation of former drainage schemes including management arrangements;

BACKGROUND

There are at least 20 historic drainage areas within the WGCMA region, the most significant being Trafalgar-Yarragon Flats (now known as the Moe River Flats), Kilmany, Tarwin Lower and around Corner Inlet. Most were established as Drainage Trusts under the old Drainage Areas Act 1958, or as River Improvement Trusts, and managed by local committees with support from local Councils. Since Council amalgamations in the late 1990s, most of these schemes have fallen into disrepair, with no agency given clear responsibility.

For a summary of the past, current and proposed management arrangements refer to Appendix C in the WGCMA Regional Drainage Plan, 2000.

Drainage schemes managed under the auspices of River Improvement Trusts have suffered as a result of the merger of the old Trusts into Catchment Management Authorities and the refocussing of activity towards river health objectives. In many respects, rural drainage schemes are an anathema to good river health and catchment management, as they have led to a loss of wetlands and they often result in nutrient-rich and turbid water entering natural waterways.

The Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Trust now known as the Moe River Flats Drainage Scheme is the most significant and active drainage management area in West Gippsland. The Drainage Scheme area was gazetted as a Water Management Scheme under Section 215 of the Water Act and a landholder Committee has been actively pursuing a beneficiary pays Tariff since 2001. The following text box provides a timeline of events and highlights the difficulties of implementing a beneficiary pays drainage system.

Trafalgar – Yarragon Flats (Moe River)

1. 1999 – Drainage Fee collection by Baw Baw Shire lapses (Fee raised by BBS and passed onto Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Trust).

2. 1999 – A Ministerial Steering Committee was formed to steer an investigation of the system. Committee consisted of 6 landholders and 4 agency reps. Committee chaired by David Balfour, SKM engaged to undertake the investigation.

3. 2001 – The committee prepare a Water Management Scheme under Section 215 of the Water Act 1989. 4. July 2002 – Minister made an order under Section 216 (1) (a) and (b) of the Water Act declaring the Management Scheme to be an approved scheme and the CMA as the responsible authority. 5. 2003 – CMA Board endorses following action: 6. i. That the CMA Board accepts responsibility for implementation of the scheme ii. Authority continue to seek funding for the works program on the Moe River iii. That the Authority establishes an internal rating system to fund maintenance of the lateral system. iv. That the Authority establishes a landowner committee to manage the schemes implementation. There were initial concerns about the legalities of the CMA introducing a tariff. The concerns related to legalities of bringing in a rate in an approved ‘Water Management Scheme’ area. This was why the CMA held off on the appointment of the Landholder Management Committee.

Section 260 A of the Water Act now makes it possible for the CMA to set Tariffs. 2008 – MOU with BBS established. Shire to collect the landholder tariff and pass it on to the CMA. 7. Tariff to be raised under section 259 (1) (c) of the Water Act. An Authority may impose fees under – a tariff for irrigation, drainage or salinity mitigation purposes on any properties within its district. 8. 9. 2008 Ballot held in regards to the imposition of a tariff on landholders. 189 ballot papers mailed out - 93 returned with 63% against the tariff. 10. 2009 Feb – CMA board approves the introduction of a tariff. The Minister for Water to be briefed and position sought.

Trafalgar – Yarragon Flats (Moe River) (cont)

15. 2008 – Ballot held in regards to the imposition of a tariff on landholders. 189 ballot papers mailed out - 93 returned with 63% against the tariff. 16. Feb 2009 – CMA board approves the introduction of a tariff. The Minister for Water to be briefed and position sought. 17. 2009 – CMA advised by DSE that the Government would not support the introduction of a tariff. Decision based on the fact that the majority of landholders don’t support it. 18. 2010 – 2011 – Return to wet weather causes regular and prolonged flooding of Moe River Flats and erosion of Moe River.  Groups of local landholders contact WGCMA and are issued with Works on Waterways permits to carry out drainage maintenance works. Three of the more flood prone areas have drainage works completed. Goodings Drain, 8 Mile Road and 9 Mile Road. Works on Wheelbarrow Drain planned. 19. 2011– Meeting with DSE Executive Director (Water) to discuss options. Indications that new Government may now have an appetite to support introduction of tariff as part of pilot. Outcome was that WGCMA would work up a proposal with figures to implement a rate to support drainage maintenance for DSE to consider and have input into. 20. Oct 2012 Inquiry into Rural Drainage announced.

2. The status of rural drainage across Victoria, including effectiveness, regulation, ownership, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private land;

BACKGROUND

As a general observation, many rural drainage systems across the West Gippsland CMA region are in poor condition, are not fully effective in achieving their intended purpose, and there is no clear line of responsibility for ensuring their upgrade or maintenance.

Types of Rural Drains

Single Drains – small drains providing service to one landowner

Communal Drains - drains providing service to two or more landowners, may be located on private or on public land.

Waterway Drains – waterways with natural sections remaining but have been straightened. These waterways may be of a small scale with small catchments (eg Loch Creek near Trafalgar) or they may be of a very large scale with catchments in the order of hundreds of square kilometres (Moe River between Yarragon and Moe). Most of these drains will be located on either crown land reserves or road reserves.

Effectiveness

To consider the issue of effectiveness we need to first consider the level of service the drainage system is providing. To do this we need to consider two factors. First is the level of flood protection provided when the drain was originally constructed. The second is the maintenance regime required to keep the system performing to the original construction standard.

Most rural drains were constructed by landowners at the least possible cost with the objective of minimising the impact of floodwater sitting on pasture by allowing it to drain off the land in a reasonable amount of time. They were not constructed to protect the paddock from all flooding or with a particular design flow to a given ARI. Given this it is very difficult to determine what level of service is being provided by most rural drains.

This lack of basic design information makes it problematic to determine an acceptable maintenance regime and as a result most rural drains are not regularly maintained and consequently the perception of most of the community is that they are not effective even though they may be doing the job expected when they were first constructed. With the return to wetter conditions over the last few years this view has been commonly provided by most community members who have been impacted by flooding.

Rural drains located downstream of urban areas have been placed under extra pressure as urban areas continue to develop and create additional runoff. Most of these rural drains were never designed to carry the runoff from urban areas to any particular standard so any additional stormwater load from increased hard surfaces further erodes their effectiveness and impacts the adjoining rural land.

It is worth noting that perceptions of effectiveness possibly differ today compared to the time of construction. In particular the migration of new landholders, residences and some decision makers to the district can bring new levels of expectation. In extreme cases there is an expectation that rural drainage should operate at a level similar to large urban centres.

Regulation

Section 199 (1)(a) of the Water Act 1989 provides wide reaching enabling powers to CMAs however funding is not provided to allow the CMA to provide a service.

Rural Drains which are designated waterways require a Works on Waterways approval for works. Activities such as clean out works are not currently covered as the Waterway Protection By-Law has lapsed.

Where rural drains provide drainage for upstream properties pass through private property a lack of maintenance or poor farming practices such as allowing stock access to the drain can impact on the upstream property. There are no regulations which require the downstream landowner to maintain their section of drain. Maintenance of rural drains on private land relies on the priorities of individual landowners which may not align to system objectives.

Maintenance of rural drains on public land is not normally a funding priority therefore limited works occur potentially leading to impacts to the upstream system. This could include simple preventative maintenance activities such as the removal of fallen trees. This can result in increased costs over time as the fallen tree may lead to increased erosion and failure of adjacent infrastructure. The Moe canal is a prime example of this process in the WGCMA region.

ISSUES OR COMMENT

A number of agencies, particularly municipal councils and the CMA, have the ability to take responsibility for rural drainage schemes under current legislation, but no agency has been prepared to fully take on the responsibility and the consequent demands for funds. The CMA’s own experience in attempting to establish a drainage tariff for the Trafalgar-Yarragon Flats and Kilmany has been difficult, mainly because it has lacked support from the community and successive State Governments.

It is worth noting that despite limited funds he WGCMA has played a coordinating role to assist in achieving community objectives related to local drainage schemes. This has included provision of advice and coordinating potential works programs. Limited protection and enhancement work has been undertaken when funds have been made available (for example flood recovery works).

In areas where a formal Drainage Scheme is not warranted clearly defined levels of service are required backed up with sufficient regulation and oversight to ensure required works are done. The current system whereby the WGCMA acts as a mediator in disputes is not sufficient to achieve good drainage outcomes as it relies on the good will of all parties. If sufficient good will is not shown then the only redress is to pursue civil action through the Court system. This is obviously an expensive and time consuming process which is seldom justified when it comes to rural drainage issues.

RECOMMENDATION

That government clearly nominate the local agencies that should have responsibility for rural drainage (most likely Councils or CMAs) and then support those agencies in establishing drainage rates (based on contributor and beneficiary-pays principles) to ensure the upgrade and continued maintenance of drainage systems.

Government develop a clear definition of rural drains and develop a framework for determining the level of service required of rural drains.

Government develop clear guidelines for resolving drainage disputes between landowners and determine the agency responsible for managing this process.

Government consider providing small amount of annual base funding to address minor adhoc maintenance issues as they arise

3. The benefits of rural drainage for both productive land and environment together with community expectations for rural drainage programs;

BACKGROUND

Benefits of Rural Drainage:

The WGCMA Regional Drainage Plan, 2000 documented the benefits of rural drainage as:

 Reduced waterlogging to pastures  Management of ground water tables especially saline ground water  Protection of road infrastructure

In most cases rural drains have been constructed to facilitate farming activities in areas of former swamp or low lying wetland. Draining this land has created valuable farming land which sustains many farmers during dry times when other farm land becomes less productive. These areas are likely to become more valuable in Gippsland as the effects of climate change become more evident over time.

Community Expectations

Across West Gippsland the community’s expectations for rural drainage varies considerably. People who live adjacent to rural drains do not want to see any flooding in their yards or impacting their outbuildings or dwellings. Farmers who are most concerned about waterlogging and want the water off the paddocks in 1-2 days before the pasture dies. People who live in urban areas don’t want their urban drainage impacted by the condition of the downstream rural drain. People who live on hills and who contribute to stormwater runoff have minimal interest where the stormwater goes and certainly don’t want to pay for the maintenance of drains that are located miles from their property and which have no “benefit” to them.

ISSUES OR COMMENT

The most common form of rural drainage in West Gippsland is the drainage of wet, low-lying areas (sometimes swampy wetlands) to create what is often very valuable agricultural land. The agricultural pursuits on this land, including dairying, cropping and grazing, make significant contributions to the wealth and sustainability of rural communities. However, within our region, rural drainage seldom has an environmental benefit and has often been accompanied by significant environmental impact to the receiving waterway and the ecosystems beyond this (such as the Gippsland Lakes).

Like most things, the provision and maintenance of rural drainage is a balancing act. The obvious economic and social benefits need to be balanced against the loss of environmental values, which include the initial loss of wetlands, loss of native vegetation and continuing degradation of water quality within receiving waterways.

RECOMMENDATION

That the opportunity be taken to review the continued operation of individual drainage schemes. It is likely that some should be abandoned on environmental or cost/benefit grounds and others should be upgraded and maintained as viable well-managed schemes.

Where adverse environmental impacts are evident, the cost to mitigate these impacts should be borne by the beneficiary. Where the link to the beneficiary is unclear then there may be a role for government to bear these costs.

4. The impacts of rural drainage, including on other landholders and the environment including waterways, wetlands, flora, fauna and water quality

BACKGROUND

The WGCMA Regional Drainage Plan, 2000 documented the impacts of rural drainage as:

 Hydrological Impacts  Erosion Potential  Soil / nutrient Export  Water Quality  Downstream landholders  Wetlands / Ecological Impacts

Some or all of these impacts may apply to individual drainage areas and may by quite expensive and difficult to quantify. In West Gippsland it is well known that the Gippsland Lakes are vulnerable to algal blooms and that nutrient export from farmland is one of the contributing factors. It is further known that one of the pathways for this nutrient export is through rural drains.

ISSUES OR COMMENT

Rural drainage at all scales must minimise the impact to the environment. While it is now unlikely that any remaining swamps or new drainge schemes will be developed it must be acknowledged that drainage works of the past have significantly impacted the environment both directly through draining swamps/wetlands and indirectly to downstream receiving waterways through changed hydrology, increasing erosion, exporting soil and nutrients more readily.

The Latrobe River for example underwent a significant river straitening program over many years which reduced the length of the river by 70km. These works changed the hydrology significantly to downstream areas resulting in more erosion and sediment export to the Gippsland Lakes. Works are now being done to reinstate some of the meanders to improve the health of the river.

Management of existing drains should not only focus on providing the most efficient drainage channel but should also seek to mitigate the impacts listed above. This could be done by providing constructed wetlands at the downstream end of each drainage system or by ensuring runoff from farm land is treated prior to discharge to the rural drain.

The WGCMA receive regular complaints from adjoining land owners who are aggrieved with the lack of drainage maintenance or works done by their neighbour which is impacting on the flow of water across their boundaries. As part of our regional drainage role the WGCMA has sought to resolve these issues on behalf of the landowners. This is done by talking to both parties and trying to understand the cause of the issue. Once the issue is understood the WGCMA prepares a report including recommended actions and provides it to both parties. It is then up to both parties to agree on the recommendations and implement them. If one party chooses to ignore the recommendations the WGCMA cannot enforce the outcome meaning that the situation remains unresolved and remains as a source of tension between the landowners.

RECOMMENDATION

The environmental risks associated with rural drainage need to be clearly understood and management of rural drainage must minimise the impact to the environment.

A clearly defined process and guidelines should be developed to help resolve drainage complaints between neighbours

5. Options for improved rural drainage management across Victoria, including regulation, institutional and funding arrangements, operation, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private land; and

BACKGROUND

The WGCMA Regional Drainage Plan, 2000 proposed a number of management options for improved drainage management in the West Gippsland Region:

 Effective asset management of each drainage system  Identification of visible adverse impacts such as erosion, increased flooding, impact on the downstream environment.  Equitable approach to the collection of rates or levies from benefitting landowners  Where appropriate action to reduce erosion  Allowance for some plant growth within the drain to help filter nutrients. Would need to be well managed so that excessive growth did not reduce the hydraulic efficiency of the drain.  Improved farm management practices  Possible use of constructed wetlands  Buffer zones to drains to improve water quality

While the above options would be applicable to most drainage systems the scale of the system must also be considered as well as the landowner’s willingness to participate in rural drainage management.

Rural Drainage Management at varying scale Rural drainage management needs to be considered at varying scales to recognise the risks and benefits associated with it and the subsequent costs. When rural drainage can be managed by local landowners working cooperatively costs will be minimised. When the number of landowners increase and the drains are located on public land then the ability for landowners to do works themselves and manage the cost sharing burden becomes more difficult and a more formal arrangement such as a drainage scheme may be more appropriate. The following table sets out the drainage system scale and the current drainage management arrangements in West Gippsland. Rural Drain Scale Management Arrangement Rural drain located on private property servicing Works done by the landowner on their land one property Rural drain located on public land servicing one Works done by single landowner with permission property from the public land manager and the CMA if drain is also a waterway Rural drain located on private land servicing two Landowners share costs through agreement. or more properties Permission to do works required from owner of the land and the CMA if drain is also a waterway Rural drain located on public land servicing two Landowners share costs through agreement. or more properties Permission to do works required from public land manager and the CMA if drain is also a waterway Multiple rural drain located on public land Drainage Scheme servicing multiple properties

Where the system is small and only a few landowners receive the benefits of the drainage system then an informal management group probably provides the most balanced outcome between managing an efficient drainage system and minimising the impacts to the environment.

For larger systems that provide drainage services to multiple landowners and the drainage assets are located on public land then a more formal drainage scheme may be warranted.

The WGCMA Regional Drainage Plan recommended three different management arrangements with either WGCMA or Council providing a “stewardship” role to support the local management group to implement an agreed works program on an annual basis. The Stewardship role involved:

 providing direction and leadership to the local management committee  ensure adequate maintenance programs are implemented  rating function

ISSUES OR COMMENT

Across West Gippsland active drainage management has occurred at various locations and the management arrangements adopted have developed individually based on the willingness of the affected landowners and the degree of the drainage problem. In some areas landowners are willing and able to manage the drainage system without assistance from an external agency and in other areas external agency input has been significant. Any improvements to drainage management must allow flexibility to address the drainage issue at the appropriate scale. Over the last twelve years or so the chief difficulty with the above management arrangements is the lack of willingness for landowners to work cooperatively and to share the costs. Landowners are unwilling to fund the required works as they believe that either the state or local government should pay for the upkeep of rural drains especially when these are located in public land. The Moe River Flats drainage area has been in transition for over 12 years. A process to introduce a tariff on the beneficiaries of the drainage system was worked through in 2008. At that time the majority of landowners were not willing to support a tariff for drainage maintenance. Many landholders opposed the tariff for the following reasons;  With a sharp increase in urban development in towns like Warragul, Yarragon and Trafalgar there is a belief among many landholders living in the drainage area that a tariff should be more widespread and not just imposed on those who receive the water at the bottom of the system - the tariff should be imposed evenly through the catchment.  Some landholders prefer to do their own maintenance works. They view this as being more convenient and less costly. This way works are done when they’re needed and with less red tape.  Some landholders have the view that the previous Management Committee looked after their own interests first and weren’t even-handed. These landholders generally don’t support the tariff.  Opposition to the tariff is also coming from landholders with lifestyle type properties who don’t have the same priorities as the larger landholders and can tolerate/ignore inundation. They don’t see the need for a tariff.  Tariff is seen as another tax at a time of rising utility bills rates and living costs.  Conditions were dry in 2008 on the back of nearly ten years of drought

With no regular maintenance over the past 13 years, it will take a large injection of funds to bring the system up to an acceptable standard. The system depends on the integrity of the Moe Main Drain to operate efficiently and with massive erosion occurring in the Moe Drain, as a result of frequent high flows, the whole system is rapidly breaking down. It is thought that flooding of the flats in June 2012 was exacerbated by the poor condition of the Main Drain’s levee bank and broken floodgates which allowed water from the Main Drain to inundate the flats.

Central to the efficiency of the system are the 20 plus floodgates on the Main Drain. Many of these floodgates are in a decrepit condition and are not working.

When landholders take on the responsibility of doing their own drain maintenance it can often lead to disputes with neighbours. This relates to the changes of drainage patterns which may lead to excess water draining onto a neighbouring property or being held back on a property. Without a central organising body to control maintenance works, there is a potential that these disputes will escalate. The flip side to this is when a downstream landowner doesn’t maintain their section of drain and this causes impacts on the upstream property owner.

RECOMMENDATION

Nominate a lead agency type (eg Councils or CMAs) to take responsibility for all rural drainage across the State and establish ongoing funding for this role

Provide direction that the management of all drainage schemes needs to be self-funded by the beneficiaries (in some cases, the contributors of drainage water as well) via local drainage rates. The rate needs to be fair and equitable.

Develop and issue guidelines for the management of drainage systems to minimise their environmental impact

Provide funding to individually review all large drainage systems. The reviews should include an assessment of their ongoing viability, funding needs and environmental impact

Response must consider the scale of rural drainage including the number of affected land owners and the land tenure.

6. The Committee’s report on the Inquiry into flood mitigation infrastructure in Victoria.

BACKGROUND

Levee and waterway management can influence upstream drainage systems. High water levels in receiving waterways will hold back flood water in the drainage system. Flood gates through levees if not working properly will either allow more floodwater from the main waterway to enter the drainage system or conversely will not allow the drainage system to outflow into the main waterway when it has receded. Drainage systems have to be managed holistically with due consideration to the condition of the receiving waterway, any protecting levees and flood gates and finally the drainage system for the benefitting landowners

RECOMMENDATION

Development of drainage scheme plans needs to consider the effect of the downstream waterway.

Management of high priority strategic levees needs to consider the drainage of the land behind the levee including management of any associated flood gates.

Contents

Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Scope of Works 1 1.2 Study Area 2

2. Background 4 2.1 Background 4 2.2 Need for a Regional Drainage Strategy 4 2.3 Regional Priorities 4 2.4 Consultation 5

3. Visions, Objectives and Targets 7

4. Information Gaps 9

5. Floodplain and Waterway Management Linkages 10

6. Impacts of Drainage 11 6.1 Drainage Impacts 11 6.2 Drainage Benefits 12 6.3 Drainage Impact Management 12

7. Drainage Assets 15 7.1 Classification of Drainage within the West Gippsland CMA Region15 7.2 Drainage Scheme Asset Identification 18 7.3 Existing Arrangements and Responsibilities 20 7.4 Annual Management and Maintenance Costs 20 7.4.1 Present Management and Maintenance Costs 20 7.4.2 Future Management and Maintenance Costs 20 7.4.2.1 Assumptions Used to Determine Costs 20 7.4.2.2 Summary of Costs 23 7.4.3 Acceptable Long Term Standard 24 7.5 Drainage Conflicts and Issues 25 7.6 Potential New Development 28 7.7 Urban Drainage Outfalls 28 7.8 Irrigation Drainage Outfalls 29

8. Management Framework 32 8.1 Legislative Powers Relating to Rural Drainage Management 32 8.1.1 Water Act 32 8.1.2 Local Government Act 33 8.2 Rural Drainage Issues 34 8.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities 34 8.2.2 Urban/Rural Interface 35 8.3 Drainage Scheme Management 36 8.3.1 Drainage Management 36 8.3.1.1 Current Management of Drains and Drainage Schemes37

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority i

8.3.2 Future Management Arrangements 38 8.3.3 Benefits and costs of management actions 40

9. Planning Issues 41 9.1 Structure of Victorian Planning Controls 41 9.2 Planning Controls Over Drainage Management 42 9.3 Role of the CMA - Management of Drainage 43 9.4 Incorporation of Planning Controls into Planning Schemes 44

10. Specific Drain Management Plans 45

11. Performance Monitoring 47 11.1 Aims and Methodology of Performance Assessment 47 11.2 Water Quality Monitoring in West and South Gippsland 47 11.3 Water quality monitoring in the MacAlister Irrigation District 48 11.4 Environment Protection Authority Monitoring Requirements 48 11.5 Recommended Water Quality Monitoring Program for Gazetted Drainage Areas 48

12. Cost Sharing and Funding 50 12.1 Cost Sharing Principles 50 12.2 Proposed Cost Sharing Arrangements 50

13. Action Program and CMA Costs 52

14. References 60

Appendix A - Personal Communication 62

Appendix B - Inventory of Communal Drains and Drainage Schemes65

Appendix C - Drainage Scheme Management Arrangements 66

Appendix D - Key Stakeholders 73

Appendix E - Minutes of Workshop held between the WGCMA and Local Government 77

Appendix F - Urban Drainage Outfalls 78

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority ii

Document History and Status

Issue Rev. Issued To Qty Date Reviewed Approved DRAFT Wayne Gilmour 1 1/4/99 T Dando T Dando (WGCMA) FINAL A Wayne Gilmour 1 24/5/99 T Dando T Dando DRAFT (WGCMA) FINAL B Wayne Gilmour 1 10/8/99 T Dando G. Linke (WGCMA) FINAL B SKM - Library 1 10/8/99 T. Dando G. Linke FINAL B SKM - File 1 10/8/99 T. Dando G. Linke FINAL C Wayne Gilmour 1 23/9/99 T. Dando G. Linke (WGCMA) FINAL D Wayne Gilmour 8 9/11/99 T. Dando G. Linke (WGCMA) FINAL D SKM - Library 1 9/11/99 T. Dando G. Linke FINAL D SKM - File 1 9/11/99 T. Dando G. Linke

Printed: 8 November 1999 9:30 A11/P11 Last Saved: 21 December 2012 9:33 AM File Name: I:\WCMS\Wc00909\100\REP98_09.15\r06gws.doc Project Manager: Trevor Dando Name of Organisation: West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority Name of Project: Regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy Name of Document: Document Version: Final D Job Number: WC00909.100

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority iii

Executive Summary

Introduction The West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) was formed on 1 July 1997 to develop an integrated approach to catchment issues within the West Gippsland region, in partnership with Government and the community.

The WGCMA has two major parts to its business:

 a direct operational role in waterway, floodplain and rural drainage management; and  a planning and coordination role, where it works in partnership with all stakeholders to protect and enhance the condition of the region’s natural resources.

This is the first time that any local organisation has had responsibility for regional drainage and floodplain management. Therefore, it is critical that the WGCMA develops management strategies for these functions that clearly identify roles, responsibilities, assets, liabilities, targets and regional priorities.

This strategy focuses on Rural Drainage Management within the WGCMA area.

The Rural Drainage Management Strategy includes:

 An assessment of current conditions of existing rural drains  Current arrangements for management of drainage schemes  Impacts of drainage on waterway and catchment health  A review of potential new drainage development areas  Identification of potential new drainage development and likely impact  Objectives and targets for management of rural drainage within the region  Future roles and responsibilities for on going management of drainage schemes including protection from the adverse impacts of drainage;  Funding and cost sharing arrangements for implementation of the strategy.

Rural Drainage Management Vision

To ensure that an integrated approach to surface drainage planning, implementation and management is achieved throughout the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority Region through involvement of the community and coordinated program delivery.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority iv

Objectives

1. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and Local Government in Surface Drainage Management.

2. Keep the community informed and involved in drainage management issues effecting either specific areas and/or the region as a whole.

3. Ensure that there are simple mechanisms in place for the resolution of any concerns or conflicts associated with surface drainage.

4. Develop drain performance standards to ensure that any adverse effects from surface drainage are minimised through adequate control and management of existing and new surface drainage systems.

5. Encourage community involvement in the management of drainage systems.

6. Ensure that surface drains which are controlled by the CMA, or are constructed using Commonwealth, State or CMA funds, are sustainably built and managed.

7. Document the areas:  serviced by surface drains and establish who is responsible for those drains,  requiring surface drains and the benefits associated with improving drainage in those areas, and  requiring surface drainage management plans and relative priorities for the development of these plans and implementation of surface drainage systems.

8. Ensure performance monitoring standards are developed and monitoring is undertaken to protect the environment and ensure surface drains are sustainably managed.

Asset Summary

Through extensive consultation with the community and Government Agencies the major types of drainage have been identified and defined as follows:

Gazetted Drainage Schemes - These generally consist of a main drain that services several landholders and which was recognised officially as a gazetted drainage area under the Drainage Area Act 1958. Historically Local Government assisted the landholders in developing and managing these schemes.

Eleven drainage schemes have been identified that require some form of continual maintenance and management. Five drainage schemes have West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority v

been identified that have not required continual maintenance and management since the initial drain formation, and four gazetted drainage schemes acted essentially as waterway management groups (their role now taken over by the WGCMA).

Informal Drainage Networks - Drainage that has been developed by local landowners to alleviate specific drainage problems without the support of Local Government or the creation of gazetted drainage areas. These drains normally service several landholders within an area.

Modified Rivers/Creeks - Natural waterways which have been modified to provide improved drainage. In most cases the waterway has been straightened and enlarged to allow drainage water to drain more quickly. In some cases in the past, Local Government or a River Improvement Trust have been involved in the management of this type of drainage.

Private On Farm Drainage - Private on farm drainage normally only drains individual properties. On farm drainage is constructed and maintained by landholders. Only small areas of sub surface drainage are found across the West Gippsland CMA region.

Impacts of Drainage

Drainage can have a significant environmental, economic and social impact if not controlled and managed in an appropriate manner. Brief descriptions of the benefits and impacts of drainage are presented below followed by options and recommendations for the control and management of drainage impacts.

Drainage Benefits

There are several potential benefits from drainage. Some or all of these benefits may apply to individual drainage areas. A brief description of the benefits of drainage are explained below.

Reduced Waterlogging Waterlogging is caused by excessive amounts of water remaining on land for extended periods, reducing the level of productivity and often making the affected areas inaccessible. Drainage removes the excess water and can reduce or eliminate waterlogging.

Accessions to Watertable Net additions to groundwater over a period of time can lead to a rising groundwater table. Where saline groundwater exists, rising groundwater levels can have significant effects on productivity when groundwater enters the root zone of the crop. Drainage can reduce the accessions to groundwater and hence influence groundwater levels.

Road Infrastructure

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority vi

Roads can be adversely affected if watertables enter the base or the sub- base, and by waters washing over the road surface. Drainage can reduce the impacts of both high watertables and over-road flows, minimising disruption and decreasing road maintenance costs.

Drainage Impacts

Hydrological Impacts Increasing the amount of drainage or improving the efficiency of drainage within a catchment can result in an increase in the flood peak and a reduction in the time taken for the peak to reach the bottom of the catchment. This has the potential to increase the flooding in the lower reaches of the catchment.

Erosion Potential The erosion potential of a catchment may increase due to drainage within the catchment. Increased velocities due to drainage can cause erosion within the drain. Erosion can also occur around drain structures such as vehicle crossings and floodgates.

Soil / Nutrient Export As a result of the increase in peak flow and reduction in the time-to-peak, levels of pollutants, nutrients and sediments from the drained land increase. The ability of on-land and in-stream processes to decrease the concentration of pollutants and nutrients is reduced with the increase in transport efficiency. Greater flow velocities act to increase erosion rates and sediment carrying capacities.

Water Quality The effects of drainage on water quality at both local and regional levels is rarely reported in academic literature (Argent & Ewing, 1996). It is generally accepted however that drainage systems can lead to a deterioration in water quality, and have a detrimental effect upon receiving waters, with the potential to promote algal blooms. Pollutant and nutrient loads can increase as a result of drainage, discharging to receiving waters.

Downstream Landholders Disputes can often result from drainage systems due primarily to the increased effects of flooding on land downstream of the drained area. Downstream landholders often develop larger drains to handle the increased flow from upstream, again exacerbating problems further downstream. Regional drainage management plans are needed to combat these issues.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority vii

 increasing the water levels downstream of the drained region (due to fewer losses in the system), and,  loss of wetlands through draining to improve pasture productivity.

Wetlands are an important habitat for many species of flora and fauna. Drainage of wetlands, or alterations in the wetting/drying cycle due to upstream drainage has a detrimental effect upon flora and fauna that rely on wetlands for survival.

Drainage Impact Management

Drainage within the West Gippsland CMA region performs an important task and allows efficient removal of surface water so that crops or pasture are not unduly effected by waterlogging, as well as other benefits mentioned above. As stated earlier, drainage also can cause adverse impacts. Recommended approaches for the effective management and minimisation of any adverse impacts from drainage are listed below.

Management options for the control of adverse drainage impacts.

 Effective Asset Management of each drainage system. This would include:  periodic assessment of the condition of the drain and associated structures.  periodic maintenance of drains and associated structures.  involving the local landholders in the management process via a community management group.  Identification of visible adverse impacts such as erosion, increased flooding, impact on downstream environment (ie. Wetlands) etc. Community management group could be responsible for the periodic assessment of the drainage systems.  Equitable approach to the collection of rates or levies for the works required to reduce drainage impacts from benefiting landowners.  Development of individual management plans for drainage areas so that specific adverse impacts can be minimised.  Where appropriate action to reduce erosion should be taken. Action could include :  - grade control structures  - vegetation rehabilitation  - drain bank stabilisation  - reduction of velocity within drain  - fencing in selected areas  - prevention of stock access  Some plant growth within the drain may help to filter nutrients from drain water. This would need to be well managed so that growth did not significantly effect the hydraulic efficiency of the drain.  Improved Farm Management practices could help to improve the water quality entering the drains including  Reduction of farm stock on drainage banks (possible fencing).

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority viii

 Improved dairy shed effluent management  Efficient application of fertiliser, etc  Possible use of constructed wetlands (either in line or off storage to reduce the nutrient loads entering the waterways from the drainage.  Buffer Zones for drainage to improve the water quality.

Management Framework for Rural Drainage

Several drainage conflicts and issues have been identified through the consultation process. Typically, the issues revolve around what could be called the ‘demarcation line’, between CMA responsibilities and Municipal responsibilities. Typically these issues involve drain maintenance in situations where urban or road drains enter rural areas.

The model adopted at the workshop for resolving the roles and responsibilities of the WGCMA and Local Government is customer focussed, and is referred to in this strategy as the ‘lead agency model’. In urban areas, local government is the suggested lead agency, and in rural areas the WGCMA is the suggested lead agency. The lead agency in declared irrigation areas would be Southern Rural Water. The lead agency is accountable for endeavouring to have an issue resolved, but is not necessarily the responsible authority. Another authority may be responsible for undertaking and funding the work required to resolve the issue.

Management Framework for Drainage Scheme Management

The management of rural drainage within the West Gippsland catchment is currently undertaken on an “ad hoc” basis with no single organisation taking responsibility for the management of drainage systems. In several cases, the local landholders are undertaking the maintenance or have formed an informal management group responsible for operation and maintenance. However, in many areas, no maintenance is being undertaken at all, and assets are continuing to deteriorate. Regardless of management arrangements, there is no overall strategic direction provided at a regional scale. Clearly these issues need to be resolved so that a structured management arrangement can be put in place across the WGCMA area.

The recommended management arrangements for drainage schemes and communal drains are listed below. A wide range of possible management arrangements were considered in the development of these recommendations. The arrangements listed are consistent with the outcomes of the WGCMA/Local Government workshop.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority ix

1. For those drainage schemes that currently have no Local Government involvement, the lead agency should be the WGCMA. The WGCMA will essentially play a ‘stewardship’ role in these drainage schemes, offering advice where appropriate. If the landholders in the scheme wish for the WGCMA to undertake works, rating to cover administration and the cost of the works will need to be implemented. As the lead agency, the WGCMA would be responsible for endeavouring to resolve any issues, but would not necessarily be responsible for funding works. Determining the level of service of the schemes will generally be through landholder groups.

2. Drainage schemes that currently have Local Government involvement would be facilitated by Local Government in the short term. Local Government would be the lead agency for these drainage schemes. The WGCMA may be required to offer advice as appropriate.

3. For communal drainage networks that require future works but currently have no Local Government involvement, the lead agency would be the WGCMA. The WGCMA would take on a stewardship role, recovering costs of works and administration through rating of those who benefit.

In all instances, the lead agency would play a stewardship role, but management of the system would be performed by a local management group. The local management committee would determine the priorities and implement a works program on an annual basis. The lead agency will provide direction and leadership to the committee and ensure adequate maintenance programs are implemented. The lead agency would also provide the rating function, collecting funds as required to undertake maintenance.

Most drains and drainage schemes would benefit from the development of management plans by the local management committees, and it is recommended in this strategy that these plans are developed. Drain/drainage scheme management plans would minimise the adverse impacts of the drainage system, and aid in maintenance and management of the system.

Maintenance costs can be minimised through the assistance of the local community by reporting any problems found within the drainage systems quickly and providing the “hands on” management of the drainage systems.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority x

Specific Drainage Management Plans

This strategy has identified a number of drainage issues, which may need to be addressed through the development of specific drain management plans.

Drain management plans outline the management arrangements, and can take on different forms. They can be very detailed and complex or quite simple.

Drain management plans will address issues such as :  Who is responsible for the management and maintenance of the specific drain.  Who should be rated to provide funds for operation and maintenance works  Determine a methodology for the prioritisation of works  If necessary determine what works are required to reinstate works back to an acceptable standard and then maintain works at the acceptable standard.

Drains and drainage schemes that require Drain Management Plans are:

 Moe Drain (and the lateral drains in the Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Area)  Kilmany Park region  Lower Tarwin area (including Fish Creek)  Latrobe River area (Plan required for contributing creeks/drains, including; Blind Joes Creek, Sheepwash Creek, Four Mile Creek Drain, Purvis Drain)

Drainage Schemes that would benefit from Drain Management Plans, but currently have adequately organised maintenance carried out to the general satisfaction of landholders have been listed below. As landholders in these areas are generally happy with the way maintenance is carried out, there is not considered to be an immediate need for a plan, although many of the assets are in fairly poor condition (particularly seawalls and floodgates). These areas include (in order from highest to lowest priority);

1. Sandy Point 2. Hedley (Nine Mile Creek) 3. Corner Inlet Drainage Area 4. Holey Plains 5. Black Swamp 6. Pound Creek 7. Waratah 8. Yanakie (Red Swamp)

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority xi

1. Introduction

The West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (CMA) was formed on 1 July 1997 to develop an integrated approach to catchment issues within the West Gippsland region, in partnership with Government and the community.

The West Gippsland CMA has two major parts to its business:

This is the first time that any local organisation has had responsibility for regional drainage and floodplain management. Therefore, it is critical that the West Gippsland CMA develops management strategies for these functions that clearly identify roles, responsibilities, assets, liabilities, targets and regional priorities.

This strategy focuses on Rural Drainage Management within the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority area. Strong links and synergies exist between the drainage strategy and both the floodplain and waterway management strategies. These have also been considered in this strategy.

1.1 Scope of Works

The Rural Drainage Management Strategy includes:

 An assessment of current conditions of existing rural drains  Current arrangements for management of drainage schemes  Impacts of drainage on waterway and catchment health  A review of potential new drainage development areas  Identification of potential new drainage development and likely impact  Management Strategy  Objectives and targets for management of rural drainage within the region  Future roles and responsibilities for on going management of drainage schemes including protection from the adverse impacts of drainage;  Funding and cost sharing arrangements for implementation of the strategy.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 1

1.2 Study Area

The area managed by the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority comprises approximately 1.9 million hectares and includes three nationally recognised river basins : LaTrobe, Thomson and South Gippsland (WGRCS 1997). The West Gippsland CMA area also includes five key municipalities (Bass Coast, Baw Baw, LaTrobe, South Gippsland and Wellington) and two municipalities with only small portions within the area (Delatite and East Gippsland).

This strategy covers the area within the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (CMA) boundaries. Drainage within the MacAlister Irrigation District is the responsibility of Southern Rural Water and, in accordance with the brief, has not been looked at in detail.

Figure 1.1 presents the boundaries of this drainage strategy.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 2

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 3

2. Background

2.1 Background

The former Catchment and Land Protection Board (CALP) developed a Regional Catchment Strategy (RCS) to address management issues on a regional overview basis. With the formation of the Catchment Management Authorities, responsibilities for drainage, waterway and floodplain management are to be developed further for each of the CMAs. For regional rural drainage management this will provide a clear understanding of drainage issues and a clear direction for the future management of drainage within the West Gippsland CMA region.

The development of strategies for Floodplain, Waterway and Rural Drainage Management will build on the existing RCS and provide a five to ten year planning framework which will enable rolling three year business plans to be further developed by the CMA.

The roles of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority in regard to regional drainage management are primarily twofold:

 the coordination / management of regional drainage schemes where appropriate; and  the protection of catchment and waterway health from adverse impacts of drainage.

2.2 Need for a Regional Drainage Strategy

A regional drainage strategy is required in order for the West Gippsland CMA to carry out its drainage management role effectively. The strategy is required to provide a planning framework for the protection of catchment and waterway health from adverse impacts of drainage, for coordination of management of drainage schemes and for further studies. The strategy will also facilitate the development of three year rolling business plans.

2.3 Regional Priorities

Regional priorities for the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority area are discussed in the Regional Catchment Strategy (RCS) and are summarised below;

Water Program objective is “To protect and improve water systems, water quality and aquatic and riparian ecosystems”

Land Program objective is to “Encourage sustainable land use. Protect existing and future beneficial uses. Halt and reverse processes of degradation”

Salinity Program objective is “To implement actions needed for the sustainable use of land and water which will reverse the trend of rising water tables and increased salinity.”

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 4

Habitat and Biodiversity Program objectives are to “Retain indigenous genetic diversity. Restore threatened species to sustainable levels. Protect and recreate integrated habitat. Maintain and improve ecosystem balance. Balance tourism and recreational use and enjoyment with ecosystem maintenance.”

Pest Program objective is to “Significantly reduce the impact and incidence of pests on flora, fauna and primary production”

Other priority actions include:

 Monitoring and assessment  Landcare  Regional Development

Rural drainage can have a major effect on all of the priorities mentioned above. Development of effective rural drainage management arrangements is therefore a critical element of good catchment management for the region.

2.4 Consultation

The key stakeholders within the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority region have been identified and are listed in Appendix D.

A key element of the success of the Regional Floodplain, Drainage and Waterway Strategies is a wide and thorough consultation with all stakeholders. Underpinning this strategy has been a comprehensive consultation process, involving a number of meetings, advertisements, letters, site inspections, phone calls and workshops. These include:

 the preparation and distribution of a pamphlet providing background to the regional floodplain and drainage strategies;

 letters to all key stakeholders;

 meetings with West Gippsland CMA Management Groups and CMA officers;

 advertisements, requesting information, placed in local papers;

 meetings with key stakeholders, including officers from each municipality,

 site inspections, meetings and consultation, over a six month period, with numerous landholders and community groups;

 a one day workshop for local government and WGCMA representatives on clarification of roles and responsibilities;

 four half day public consultation workshops at Welshpool, Leongatha, Trafalgar and Rosedale to present and discuss the draft strategies; and

 consultation with a number of government agencies.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 5

3. Visions, Objectives and Targets

Vision

Objectives

1. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and Local Government in Surface Drainage Management.

2. Keep the community informed and involved in drainage management issues effecting either specific areas and/or the region as a whole.

3. Ensure that there are simple mechanisms in place for the resolution of any concerns or conflicts associated with surface drainage.

4. Develop drain performance standards to ensure that any adverse effects from surface drainage are minimised through adequate control and management of existing and new surface drainage systems.

5. Encourage community involvement in the management of drainage systems.

6. Ensure that surface drains, which are controlled by the CMA, or are constructed using Commonwealth, State or CMA funds, are sustainably built and managed.

8. Ensure performance monitoring standards are developed and monitoring is undertaken to protect the environment and ensure surface drains are sustainably managed.

Targets

1. Agree on roles and responsibilities in Surface Drainage Management for the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and Local Government by June 1999.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 6

2. Develop an information distribution network to ensure that relevant parts of the community are kept informed of drain management issues by December 1999.

3. Establish a process whereby the community can confidentially and easily report relevant drainage related issues to the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority by December 1999.

4. Develop a process for addressing and resolving surface drainage issues, particularly conflicts, by December 1999.

5. Document the status and need for additional surface drainage by December 2000.

6. Develop a prioritisation process for the development and implementation of surface drainage management plans by December 2000.

7. Establish local area drainage management groups to assist in the management of surface drainage in specific areas by December 2001.

8. Develop guidelines for cost sharing, design, management (including legal agreements), water quality monitoring and performance monitoring of surface drains by June 2001.

9. Ensure that existing water quality monitoring programs collect data to assess current baseline conditions, and establish performance indicators to judge future water quality by December 2000.

10.Develop a prioritised list of projects for the implementation of measures to manage surface drainage in specific areas by December 2000.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 7

4. Information Gaps

During the development of the Rural Drainage Strategy a number of information gaps were identified. These information gaps will need to be addressed as part of the implementation of this strategy.

The two major issues identified relate to the quality and quantity of available drainage information and the need to clarify roles and responsibilities in rural drainage management. These two issues are discussed in more detail below.

Lack of available information.

 Municipalities often have no knowledge of drainage areas due to loss of experienced personnel during amalgamations  Very little documentation of current drainage schemes  Often schemes have been in place for decades with little or no records being kept.

Roles and Responsibilities.

Generally, the stand that each municipality is taking is that “urban drainage is the responsibility of council, but rural drainage is now the responsibility of the CMA”. Since the amalgamations of the municipalities and the establishment of the CMA, the municipalities see this as an opportune time to pass on the responsibility for these schemes to the CMA. There were also varying positions amongst the councils in relation to cooperation to assist the CMA with these drainage schemes.

A major problem is the poor condition of some of the schemes due to lack of maintenance. Many of the former drainage trusts, which in the past maintained these drainage schemes, are now defunct, and this has resulted in reduced or non-existent maintenance.

Significant information Gaps

Significant information gaps exist in most of the drainage schemes identified. Consultation with people within the community who have a good knowledge of the areas concerned has provided information on these schemes, although gaps still exist. The formulation of local management groups should help to fill these information gaps.

Minimal water quality information exists for the drains and drainage schemes identified in this strategy. Programs described in the performance assessment section (Section 11) and in Section 13 will address this issue.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 8

5. Floodplain and Waterway Management Linkages

Strong links and synergies exist between this strategy and both the rural drainage and waterway management strategies. These are shown in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Links Between Strategies

Floodplai Waterway Rural n Managemen Drainage Managemen t t Floodplains  essential for river health  wetlands allow regeneration and preservation of flora and fauna     filters nutrients and sediments(reduces sediment load in river channels and improves water quality Land Clearing  can accelerate bed and bank erosion, leading to channel widening and silt deposition    increased run off for minor to moderate storms increases impacts of minor floods Choking of Waterways (eg willow infestation)  reduces waterway capacity

 can trigger bed and bank erosion    displaces vegetation which is more suitable for fauna habitat Desnagging  reduces fauna habitat  improves capacity of waterway

 can trigger instabilities in   waterway Channel Widening & Straightening  can accelerate flows, leading to increased erosion, silt deposition, ongoing maintenance    problems Levees  protect land from flooding  can stabilise breakaway flowpaths (avulsions) but may   translate the problem elsewhere  can accelerate flows, leading to increased flood levels, bed and bank erosion, increased sediment loads and nutrient loads  reduce frequency of flooding in adjacent floodplain Seawalls  reclaim fertile land for agricultural purposes

 can increase freshwater flooding   if floodgates are inadequate or poorly maintained  loss of coastal wetlands (with inherent environmental values) Drains  collect and dispose of flood water

 if they connect lagoons and    natural drainage paths can trigger avulsions

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 9

 accelerate flows and reduce flood storage  drain swamps (and reduce wetlands)  reduce capacity to filter sediments and nutrients

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 10

6. Impacts of Drainage

Drainage can have a significant environmental, economic and social impact if not controlled and managed in an appropriate manner. Brief descriptions of the impacts and benefits of drainage are presented below followed by options and recommendations for the control and management of drainage impacts.

6.1 Drainage Impacts

There are several potential impacts from drainage. Some or all of these impacts may apply to individual drainage areas. Each drainage area would need to be assessed on an individual basis to determine the drainage impacts. These impacts can often be quite expensive and difficult to quantify. Possible drainage impacts are briefly explained below.

Water Quality The effects of drainage on water quality, at both local and regional levels, is rarely reported in academic literature (Argent & Ewing, 1996). It is generally accepted however that drainage systems can lead to deterioration in water quality, and have a detrimental effect upon receiving waters, with the potential to promote algal blooms. Pollutant and nutrient loads can increase as a result of drainage discharging to receiving waters.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 11

downstream. Local or regional drainage management plans are needed to combat these issues.

Wetlands / Ecological impacts Drainage can impact on wetlands by (Argent and Ewing, 1996);  altered habitat due to increased flushing of wetland areas by drainage water (magnitude of flood peaks is increased),  altering the drying/wetting pattern (some areas become permanently wet),  increasing the water levels downstream of the drained region (due to fewer losses in the system), and,  loss of wetlands through draining to improve agricultural productivity.

Wetlands are an important habitat for many species of flora and fauna. Drainage of wetlands, or alterations in the wetting/drying cycle due to upstream drainage, has a detrimental effect upon flora and fauna that rely on wetlands for survival.

6.2 Drainage Benefits

There are several potential benefits from drainage. Some or all of these benefits may apply to individual drainage areas. A brief description of the benefits of drainage is given below.

Accessions to Watertable Net additions to groundwater over a period of time can lead to a rising groundwater table. Where saline groundwater exists, rising groundwater levels can have significant affects on productivity when groundwater enters the root zone of the crop. Drainage can reduce the accessions to groundwater and hence influence groundwater levels.

Road Infrastructure Roads can be adversely affected if watertables enter the base or the sub- base, and by waters washing over the road surface. Drainage can reduce the impacts of both high watertables and over-road flows, minimising disruption and decreasing road maintenance costs.

6.3 Drainage Impact Management

Drainage within the West Gippsland CMA region performs an important task and allows efficient removal of surface water so that crops or pasture are not unduly effected by waterlogging as well as other benefits mentioned above. As stated earlier, drainage can also cause adverse impacts. This section outlines the approach that should be adopted for the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 12

effective management and minimisation of any adverse impacts from drainage.

Management options for the control of adverse drainage impacts

Some management and control options have been listed below which could be used to minimise the adverse impacts of drainage. Management options include :

 Effective Asset Management of each drainage system. This would include:  periodic assessment of the condition of the drain and associated structures.  periodic maintenance of drains and associated structures.  involving the local landholders in the management process via a community management group.  Identification of adverse impacts such as erosion, increased flooding, water quality, impact on downstream environment (ie. Wetlands) etc. Community management group could be responsible for the periodic assessment of the drainage systems.  Equitable approach to the collection of rates or levies for the works required to reduce drainage impacts.  Development of individual management plans for drainage areas so that specific adverse impacts can be minimised.  Where appropriate, action to reduce erosion should be taken. Action could include :  - grade control structures  - vegetation rehabilitation  - drain bank stabilisation  - reduction of velocity within drain  - fencing in selected areas  - prevention of stock access  Some plant growth within the drain may help to filter nutrients from drain water. This would need to be well managed so that growth did not significantly effect the hydraulic efficiency of the drain.  Improved Farm Management practices could help to improve the water quality entering the drains including:  Reduction of farm stock on drainage banks (possible fencing).  Improved dairy shed effluent management  Efficient application of fertiliser, etc  Possible use of constructed wetlands (either in line or off-drain storage to reduce the nutrient loads entering the waterways from drainage.  Buffer Zones for drainage to improve water quality.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 13

The Moe Drain north of Yarragon and Trafalgar provides drainage for fertile agricultural land, but slumping of embankments and lack of maintenance impacts upon water quality.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 14

7. Drainage Assets

Identification of all drainage assets within the West Gippsland CMA region is required before an effective management strategy can be developed. Major drains, drainage areas and any drainage issues have been identified and are presented in this section.

7.1 Classification of Drainage within the West Gippsland CMA Region

Extensive consultation with the community and Government Agencies has resulted in the identification of various drainage schemes and issues. The investigation has also found that there are different types of drainage which will need to be defined before a discussion and presentation of the outcomes can be made. The types of drainage identified are defined as follows:

Gazetted Drainage Scheme - A drain that services several landholders and which was recognised officially as a gazetted drainage area under the Drainage Area Act 1958. Historically, Local Government assisted the landholders in developing and managing these schemes.

Informal Drainage Network - Drainage that has been developed by local landowners to alleviate specific drainage problems without the support of local government or the creation of gazetted drainage areas. These drains normally service several landholders within an area.

Modified River/Creek - A natural waterway which has been modified to provide improved drainage. In most cases, the waterway has been straightened and possibly enlarged to allow drainage water to drain quickly. In some cases, Local Government or a River Improvement Trust have been involved in the management of this type of drainage.

Private On Farm Drainage - This type of drainage normally uses natural drainage lines or small on farm drains to drain water. Private on farm drainage normally only drains individual landholders property. This type of drain has been constructed by the landholder and is maintained by the landholder. Sub surface drainage would also be covered under this definition although only small areas of sub surface drainage are found in the West Gippsland CMA region.

The communal drains and drainage schemes identified through consultation were classified using the above definitions and are presented below. A brief description of the history of each of the areas identified is presented in Appendix C.

Gazetted Drainage Scheme

There have been numerous gazetted drainage areas established in the WGCMA area. These gazetted drainage areas have been defined as drainage schemes for the purposes of this study, and can be divided into three distinct types.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 15

1. Drainage areas that have required some form of continual maintenance and management. These are:  Black Swamp  Trafalgar Meadows  Waratah  Yanakie (Red Swamp)  Corner Inlet  Hedley (Nine Mile Creek)  Sandy Point  Pound Creek  Middle and Lower Tarwin (now abolished)  Kilmany Park (now abolished)  Holey Plains (now inactive)

2. Drainage areas that have not required continual maintenance and management since the initial drain formation. These are:  Shady Creek  Grip (now abolished)  Nilma (some routine cleaning works in early years)  Heart Morass (now abolished)  Seaspray

3. Drainage areas that acted essentially as waterway management groups (no drain formation or creek straightening). These are:  Latrobe River (former Traralgon Shire) (now abolished)  Latrobe (former Rosedale Shire) (now abolished)  Latrobe (former Morwell Shire) (now abolished)  Upper Latrobe (former Narracan Shire)

A detailed assessment of all assets within drainage schemes of type 1 has been undertaken. Plans outlining the location and extent of each of these drainage schemes are shown in Appendix B, along with an asset inventory. Plans for the ‘Holey Plains’ drainage area have not been produced, although a map showing ‘Blind Joes Creek’ is shown (see ‘Modified Rivers/Creeks in this Section). The drainage areas are also described in Section 7.2. A brief assessment of the assets in the Grip and Shady Creek drainage areas (type 2) has also been undertaken, with maps for the two areas shown in Appendix B.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 16

Floodgates on the Moe Drain, in the Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Area

Informal Drainage Networks

Drainage that has been developed by local landowners to alleviate specific drainage problems without the support of local government or the creation of gazetted drainage areas are defined in this strategy as ‘informal drainage networks’. These drains normally service several landholders within an area.

Identification of these types of drainage networks was more difficult than for gazetted drainage areas, as no records are available. One informal drainage network identified exists at Alberton which is described in Section 7.5. Management and maintenance of these assets will be undertaken by those benefiting and costs associated with undertaking these works will be borne by the beneficiaries. The CMA does not have a role in the direct management of informal drainage networks.

Modified Rivers/Creeks

The following waterways have been modified to some extent to provide improved drainage to the local area and these are shown and described on the plans and asset inventory in Appendix B.

 Moe Drain/River  Four Mile Creek Drain

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 17

 Fish Creek (works done as part of the Middle and Lower Tarwin drainage area)  Blind Joe Creek (part of these works done in the Holey Plains drainage area)  Purvis Drain (Toongabbie Creek and Fells Creek flow into this drain)  Sheepwash Creek

A description relating to the history and current management arrangements has been made for each of the Modified Rivers/Creeks listed above (refer to Appendix C).

The following waterways have also been modified to some extent to provide improved drainage to the local area.

 Crooke’s Creek - flows into Blind Joe’s Creek near it’s confluence with the Latrobe River.  Powlett River area. A section of the Powlett River u/s of the Kongwak Inverloch Rd bridge has been modified. There are some drains in the area, some up to a few kilometres in length.

These drain smaller areas than the modified waterways listed earlier, so plans outlining the locations have not be produced. However, any issues regarding these areas have been identified and are considered in the strategy.

Private On Farm Drains

Numerous areas use private drains to drain to natural waterways. These have been broadly identified on a map of the CMA, as shown in Figure 7.1. This map has been produced using slope and land use data, in order to identify those areas where on-farm drainage is likely to be present. The map shows areas that have a slope of less than 0.5 degrees and no tree cover. These areas are therefore quite flat, and likely to be agricultural. The CMA does not have a role in managing, maintaining or funding works for these assets.

7.2 Drainage Scheme Asset Identification

Plans have been produced identifying the 11 formal drainage schemes which have been identified. These plans are presented in Appendix B.

To easily identify each asset an asset reference code has been allocated to each asset. An asset register has also been compiled which provides valuable information regarding each asset. The register uses the asset reference code to relate it back to each individual asset plan. The asset register is also presented in Appendix B.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 18

Some information gaps still exist within the asset register. The community is encouraged to provide additional information regarding any assets in these drainage schemes.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 19

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 20

7.3 Existing Arrangements and Responsibilities

During consultation with landowners and other relevant authorities, the existing management arrangements and responsibilities for the drainage areas were identified. Existing arrangements and responsibilities are summarised in Table C1 in Appendix C.

7.4 Annual Management and Maintenance Costs

Annual management and maintenance costs have been determined through consultation with relevant individuals or organisations or by estimates based on the construction costs of the assets. Existing and future management and maintenance costs are presented in the following sections.

7.4.1 Present Management and Maintenance Costs

Existing annual management and maintenance costs have been determined through consultation with the community, local government and the CMA. In general, they have been difficult to determine. Often, maintenance is undertaken on an “as required” basis by the local landholder, who in most cases, doesn’t record the activities undertaken and the costs incurred. In some areas, no maintenance has been undertaken resulting in drainage assets becoming degraded.

7.4.2 Future Management and Maintenance Costs

7.4.2.1 Assumptions Used to Determine Costs

There are a range of different types of assets for which estimates of annual maintenance costs and construction costs needed to be made. All costs were calculated using current dollar values. Generally, annual maintenance costs were assumed to be a percentage of the construction cost. Pump and pumping costs have been included where appropriate. Assumptions made for each asset type are listed below.

Levees and Seawalls A construction cost of $90,000 per kilometre was used for levees and seawalls having heights of between 1.5 and 2.5 metres. Levees that were 3 to 4 metres in height were assumed to have a construction cost of $190,000 per kilometre. These estimates are based on earlier work by Sinclair Knight Merz on levees in northern Victoria.

It was assumed that the annual maintenance cost is 3% of the construction cost for seawalls (this includes inspection costs) and 2% for levees.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 21

Seawall and borrow pit drain, Sandy Point Drainage Area. Note lack of vegetative cover on crest of seawall.

Drains Costs of drains associated with seawalls were assumed to be included in the costs of seawalls (both construction and annual maintenance). Construction costs of main drains were assumed to vary between $23,000 per kilometre and $45,000 per kilometre depending on the cross-sectional size of the drain. These estimates were based on verbal information supplied by an earthworks contractor (through Phil Taylor, WGCMA), and were compared with estimates supplied by Trevor Bassett (Goulburn- Murray Water). Costs do not include farm crossings, or fencing.

A value of 1% of the construction cost was assumed to be the annual maintenance cost required for drains.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 22

Yanakie Main Drain, Yanakie Drainage Area

Floodgates Construction costs of floodgates in seawalls were assumed to be $7,000 for floodgates of typical diameters (around 0.5 - 1.0 metres diameter). This estimate compared well with costing information supplied verbally by South Gippsland Shire.

Floodgates along the Latrobe River are generally more expensive, as they are often larger than floodgates in the seawalls and usually have large concrete headwalls. A construction cost of $20,000 was assumed for Latrobe floodgates of typical diameters (around 1.0 metre diameter), and a construction cost of $35,000 was assumed for large floodgates. These estimates were made based on verbal information from Phil Taylor (WGCMA).

Floodgate cost estimates include piping and headwall costs. A value of 5% of construction cost was assumed to be the annual maintenance cost for all floodgates.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 23

One of the two sets of floodgates for the Black Swamp Drainage Area

7.4.2.2 Summary of Costs

Future management and maintenance costs have been determined for each drainage area and are presented in Table 7.1. Existing expenditure has only been determined for some of the areas, as expenditure details proved difficult to obtain in most instances.

Estimated values have not been produced for Holey Plains, Nilma, Heart Morass, and Seaspray. These areas are no longer operating as organised drainage areas, and the boundaries of the original areas are not known.

Table 7.1: Estimated Management and Maintenance Costs

Drainage Area Total Estimated Existing Estimated Annual Annual Construction Management and Management and Cost Maintenance Maintenance Costs Costs Type 1 Black Swamp 300,000 7,000 Irregular maintenance by landholders Trafalgar Meadows 2,100,000 34,000 20,000 Waratah 480,000 10,800 Irregular maintenance by landholders Yanakie (Red Swamp) 305,000 3,500 1,500

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 24

Corner Inlet 2,200,000 52,000 15,000 Hedley (Nine Mile 350,000 3,500 Irregular Creek) maintenance Sandy Point 430,000 10,500 Maintenance by individual landholders Pound Creek 670,000 16,500 Maintenance by individual landholders Middle and Lower 2,770,000 67,000 Maintenance by Tarwin* (now abolished) individual landholders Kilmany Park (now 365,000 11,000 6,000 abolished) Holey Plains (now - - Irregular inactive) maintenance by landholders Type 2 Shady Creek 80,000 800 No maintenance Grip (now abolished) 46,000 500 No maintenance Nilma (some routine - - No maintenance cleaning works in early needed years) Heart Morass (now - - Maintenance by abolished) individual landholders Seaspray - - No maintenance known to have occurred TOTAL: 10,096,000 217,000

* Includes Tarwin River along with Fish Creek Drain assets costs - original drainage area boundaries not known.

7.4.3 Acceptable Long Term Standard

Before the costs of bringing each drainage area up to an ‘acceptable standard’ can be determined, we first need to define what constitutes an ‘acceptable standard’.

An acceptable standard would be a standard that is maintainable in the long-term. The standard would also need to be acceptable to the landholders, who would generally fund maintenance works.

This strategy has provided a broad estimate of the works required to bring each drainage area up to an acceptable standard. A detailed assessment is required for each of the drainage areas to be able to make an accurate assessment of the works required to bring each area up to an acceptable standard.

7.5 Drainage Conflicts and Issues

Several drainage conflicts or issues have been identified through the consultation process. These conflicts or issues are briefly explained below.

Moe Drain - There are several sections of the Moe Drain which are in a very poor condition and require works to be undertaken in the near future. It is understood that the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority will be addressing these issues through a separate consultancy, in

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 25

partnership with the Baw Baw Shire. It is believed that an extensive assessment of the current conditions and recommendations on the most appropriate solution will be undertaken as part of the separate consultancy. Action : Consultancy to be commissioned to assess current conditions and recommendations on the most appropriate solutions.

Fulham Prison Complex - The Fulham Prison complex does not retain all stormwater on-site and has increased stormwater flows in the drainage network downstream of the complex. There is no formal outfall for the stormwater which currently flows a short distance down a roadside drain, and then into the Kilmany drainage system. A proportion of the stormwater flows down the Kilmany drain to the Kilmany pump. Some of the stormwater can flow to a drain that runs along the LaTrobe River south of the Prison (depending on drain levels), hence bypassing the Kilmany floodgate and pump. Action : Issue to be addressed by negotiation between Fulham Prison, Shire of Wellington and the CMA. Possibility of a multi purpose retarding basin / wetland should be investigated.

Tyers Drainage - A drainage issue has been identified in Archbolds Lane, Tyers, by the LaTrobe Shire. The Shire has been undertaking maintenance works on Archbolds Land, although this has not been sufficient to fully address the drainage problems in the area. The Shire believes that a detailed investigation of the drainage pattern in the area has to be undertaken in order that an appropriate solution to the problem can be found. Action : The LaTrobe Shire to investigate the issue in conjunction with the CMA to provide a solution to this problem in accordance with the ‘lead agency’ model adopted as part of this strategy.

Kilmany Drain - The drain is quite shallow, and has not been cleaned out for many years. Most of the landholders are keen to have work done on the drain to more effectively drain the area. The Kilmany Drain is partly inside the MacAlister Irrigation District, and there is some irrigation drainage water that flows into the Kilmany Drain. Southern Rural Water believe that the Kilmany Drain is what they classify as a ‘community drain’ and as such is not maintained by Southern Rural Water. Action : Management committee comprising of local landowners to be formed to address maintenance requirements and management issues.

Kilmany Pump - The Latrobe River Improvement Trust (LRIT) operated this pump in the past. Kilmany landholders paid the highest rate of all landholders rated by the LRIT in order to cover pumping costs. Currently, the Kilmany landholders pay the same CMA rate as any other landholder in the region and do not pay a premium for the operation of the pump. The WGCMA now pays about $6,000 per annum to operate the pump. There is also a set of floodgates that works in conjunction with the pump. Action : Rating of Kilmany area landholders to be reviewed with the view to recovering operation and maintenance costs of the pumps. The need for the levee and associated pumps to be reviewed by the CMA. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 26

Flow Structure in the Levee on the West bank of the MacAlister River, South of Maffra - This is effectively a rock spillway structure that was installed to allow floodwater in the to flow into the Serpentine system. It has been suggested that when this was originally constructed, it was planned to install a similar structure on the opposite bank. The landholder on the West bank receives more floodwater than he feels he should. Action : Addressed through Table 4.2 in the Floodplain Management Strategy (Sinclair Knight Merz, 1999b). In the table, a regional study is recommended. Part of the recommended regional study is a survey and audit of assets along the MacAlister River below Glenmaggie. It is envisaged that this flood structure (and issues associated with the structure) would be included in the study.

Flooding around Gullet Drain, in the Hedley Drainage Area - A landholder along the eastern section of the Gullet Drain, would like to widen the Gullet drain to quicken the removal of floodwater from his property. The drain runs for about a kilometre through both State Forest and Park land before outfalling to the sea. The owner would also like that section of the drain widened. The drain already has quite a large cross- section, and widening would appear to have little effect on floodwater removal time. Permission would be required from both DNRE (Yarram) and Parks Victoria (Foster) before cleaning or widening of the drain could take place. Permission to widen the drain would only be given if it was considered absolutely necessary, and if it was supported by a recommendation to do so from the Catchment Management Authority. Action : The CMA to investigate the issue through further discussions with the landowner, and a site inspection if necessary. The CMA needs to determine whether widening of the drain is necessary. Any works should be funded by the landowner(s).

Alberton - There are three properties affected by poor drainage/flooding in an area West of the Albert River, and South of the South Gippsland Highway. The drains running through their properties are quite shallow, and the floodgate that releases the flood and drainage water to the Albert River has a fairly low capacity. Action : The CMA to investigate with the view to providing advice to local landholders in undertaking annual maintenance of the drains and the possibility of upgrading the floodgate. Any works should be funded by the landowners.

Eastern Section of the Corner Inlet Drainage Area (between Muddy Creek [Grip Drainage Area] and the Agnes River) - Ponding occurs fairly regularly along the paddocks near the sea wall in this region. Drainage water coming down the Muddy Creek passes through the Grip Drainage Area and then flows into the Borrow Pit drain along the sea wall. It generally flows east, bypassing the large wooden floodgate structure (asset reference C21), and onto floodgates further east. These floodgates have a limited capacity to drain the water, causing the build up of floodwater in the Grip and Agnes River areas. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 27

Action : A review of the performance of the floodgates should be done by the Corner Inlet Drainage Area Advisory Committee as part of their annual asset review program.

Lonely Flats - The Lonely Flats area is located along the Purvis Drain, north east of Traralgon. The Purvis Drain has been identified in Section 7.1. It has been reported by landholders that the drain is quite silted up, and in need of cleaning. The low capacity of the drain is causing flooding and drainage problems in the area. The drain was cleaned out about thirty- two years ago, funded through a government grant. Action : The CMA to investigate the need for cleaning, and funding arrangements.

Mirboo North/Boolarra - A Shire outfall drain terminates in the middle of Trevor Campbell’s property. Stormwater discharges then run overland to a creek, waterlogging nearly half of his 10 acre property. The drain carries water from surrounding roads. According to the previous owner, the drain essentially just ‘appeared’, and the Shire has apparently not been able to find any agreements about the drain. The Shire has inspected the situation but is reported to be planning on waiting until the final Drainage Strategy report has been adopted by the West Gippsland CMA before accepting or denying responsibility. Action : The LaTrobe Shire to investigate the issue in conjunction with the CMA to provide a solution to this problem in accordance with the ‘lead agency’ model adopted as part of this strategy.

Wonthaggi Urban Drainage - Stormwater from part of the Wonthaggi township travels to the Powlett River along a drain that passes through several farms. This drain is identified on a map in Appendix B. Landholders have been complaining about the drain flooding parts of their properties. Action : The Bass Coast Shire to investigate the issue in conjunction with the CMA, in accordance with the ‘lead agency’ model adopted as part of this strategy.

General Issues - General drainage issues raised in the public consultation workshops included;  Inadequate drainage infrastructure capacity due to catchment changes over the last few decades. Examples cited of inadequate road drainage include the Princes Highway duplication, and the Moe contour drain area.  Future planning requirements for drainage should incorporate the use of retarding basins and incorporating wetlands into the drainage design (to reduce flooding effects, and improve water quality).  Improvements to upper catchment drainage have led to accelerated runoff - need for upstream retention where possible.  Maintenance of seawalls and floodgates - condition of some of these assets are poor.  There is a recognition that extra funding is required for general catchment drainage works and that the whole catchment should pay for West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 28

drainage activities, however, there is reluctance for a new rate to be introduced.  Committees of management need a balance of both local people and technical guidance.  Landowners often don’t know what they can and can’t do, or what is best practice. A community education brochure may be required.  Accountabilities for drainage need to be clarified.  CMA needs to determine policy on the distinction between the definition of a waterway, and the definition of a drainage line.

7.6 Potential New Development

There has been no indication of any new significant development in rural drainage through the West Gippsland CMA Region through the extensive consultation with Local Government and the community.

The use of the planning powers of Local Government should be used to help control all new drainage development. Further work and discussion is required in conjunction with the municipalities in regards to possibly amending their planning schemes to establish a consistent drainage planning framework across the CMA region.

7.7 Urban Drainage Outfalls

Main urban drainage outfalls have been identified for all urban areas in the CMA region. Where available these were shown in the set of maps contained in Appendix F, and should assist the CMA (and Local Government) in the development of stormwater management plans, as well as other actions arising from this strategy. It was difficult to obtain information on urban outfalls in some areas and Local Government should be encouraged to update their asset inventories in relation to stormwater systems.

Stormwater quality can contribute to the following responses in waterways and receiving waters;  blue green algal blooms,  weed growth,  poor effluent quality,  undefined pollution,  pathogenic bacteria,  litter,  low dissolved oxygen,  high salinity, and  changes in biological diversity.

Stormwater concentrations and loads in all townships can be expected to be related to the area of development including buildings and roads and to the town population in unsewered towns. Such concentrations and loads would be substantially similar to other urban areas throughout Victoria. Table 7.2 gives typical concentrations of pollutants in urban runoff. Such West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 29

concentrations are typically an order of magnitude in excess of receiving water standards and can be expected to have at least an adverse local impact at times of discharge.

Table 7.2: Concentrations of Pollutants in Urban Runoff

Pollutant Desirable Levels Range of Typical Typical range of Concentrations in Concentrations in Urban Runoff Secondary Sewage Suspended solids <20 100-800 10-30 (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/L) <2 5-30 10-20 Total Phosphorus <0.02 0.1-0.5 5-10 (mg/L) Total Nitrogen <0.2 0.5-2 15-30 (mg/L) Copper (mg/L) 0.01 0.03-0.05 0.04 Lead (mg/L) 0.01 0.05-0.20 0.05-0.10 Zinc (mg/L) 0.01 0.10-0.40 0.10 E Coli 200 1,000-100,000 up to 10,000 (org/100ml)

7.8 Irrigation Drainage Outfalls

Irrigation drainage outfalls from the MacAlister Irrigation District (MID) are presented on the map in Figure 7.2. Drains and waterways are shown separately on the map.

Drains from the MID discharge to the Latrobe, Thomson, MacAlister, and Avon Rivers, which all drain to Lake Wellington. The area drained in the MID is around 44,000 hectares. Drains in the MID are generally constructed, although some follow old watercourses, billabongs, or natural waterways. Some watercourses in the MID that are used as drains are classified by the EPA as ‘natural’ creeks. Water quality in these creeks is poor and the diversity of species that live in the creeks is reduced.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 30

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 31

Water quality from irrigation areas degrades waterways and receiving waters, predominantly through the high nutrient concentrations and loads contributed from the irrigated farmland. A major impact of high nutrient loads is the increased occurrence of blue green algal outbreaks, particularly in receiving waters. Phosphorus has been identified as being the limiting nutrient for algal growth in the lakes system. A plan for reducing the load of phosphorus passed from the MID is being implemented by Southern Rural Water, and is detailed in ‘SRW, DNRE (1998)’.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 32

8. Management Framework

A major component of this strategy is the development of a management framework, which can be used to adequately manage drainage within the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority region. This section discusses the management framework proposed to manage drainage schemes and other drainage issues, including any adverse impacts of drainage. This management framework will apply to existing as well as any future drainage.

The Catchment Management Authority and the Local Governments play key roles in the control and management of rural drainage within the West Gippsland region. However, their roles and responsibilities have not been clearly defined in the past. As discussed in Argent and Ewing (1996), “Amongst Authorities there exists neither clear and common guidelines, nor understanding, of where responsibility for strategic planning, control and funding of drainage activities lies.” Below is a discussion regarding the legislative powers of both the Catchment Management Authority and the Local Government. A workshop was held to discuss and attempt to find agreement on the roles and responsibilities for rural drainage, and is further discussed in Section 8.2.

8.1 Legislative Powers Relating to Rural Drainage Management

The legislative powers and functions of local government and the Catchment Management Authority are outlined below.

8.1.1 Water Act

Catchment Management Authority Functions & Powers

The Catchment Management Authority has Waterway Management, Regional Drainage and Floodplain Management powers under Divisions 2, 3 and 4 of Part 10 of the Water Act respectively. Division 3 relates to Regional Drainage.

Three functions which are relevant to this discussion under Division 3 (s199) are:

“to provide, operate and protect drainage systems, including the drainage of water into all designated waterways and all designated land or works within its district and, with the consent of the Minister, the drainage of water from that district into any waterway outside that district.” S199(1)(a) “to develop and implement programs for the protection and enhancement of instream uses” S199(1)(b) “to investigate, promote and conduct research into any matter related to its functions, powers and duties in relation to drainage” S199(1)(c)

These functions are enabling and do not place any obligation on the Catchment Management Authority to undertake any action.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 33

Section 157 of the Water Act provides that if power is exercised under Divisions 2, 3 or 5 of Part 10 or Part11 of the Water Act, the liability for any damage caused by the flow of water from drainage works is limited. This limitation of liability is such that if events greater than the design (intended) event occur, liability is limited to any damage caused by runoff only up to the design event. Damage for any intentional flooding below the design event remains a liability unless the responsible group has secured “flooding and/or drainage rights”. (from legal advice given)

Catchment Management Authorities have the powers to apply special rates or charges (fees) via a tariff applicable to properties within their respective areas of responsibility. These “fees” are to recover the costs incurred in relation to the management, maintenance and replacement of works. These powers are provided under Division 5 (Payment for Services), particularly sections 259 and 260 of the Water Act.

8.1.2 Local Government Act

Local Government Functions & Powers

Local Government Councils have the power to construct, operate, manage and maintain drainage schemes within their municipality through the following sections of the Local Government Act.

As stated in the Local Government Act (S8) Councils have functions including, amongst other things, property services (Water, drainage, sewerage, gas and electricity).

Under Section 201 of the Local Government Act “a council may construct, operate, control, manage or maintain any works or undertakings which form the whole or part of a scheme declared to be an approved scheme under section 216 of the Water Act.“

Under Section 198 of the Local Government Act “(1) The following are vested in the Council and are under the management and control of the Council, (a) Public sewers and drains within the municipal district; (b) Sewers and drains in and under roads in the municipal district; (c) Works and materials relating to (a) and (b) (2) This section does not apply to any sewers and drains vested in another Council or a Minister, the Crown or any public body.”

Local Governments also have the powers to apply special rates or charges to collect any cost incurred in relation to the management and maintenance of drainage under S162 and S163 of the Local Government Act.

The Local Government Act gives Council, and the Water Act gives the WGCMA the legislative powers to rate drainage areas. There has been some debate about whether gazetted drainage areas have been made redundant with the introduction of the Water Act, although it appears that West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 34

there are differing legal opinions on this issue. If there is any doubt then either local government or the CMA, under their respective Acts, should declare a new scheme to ensure works are carried out in a satisfactory manner in consultation with all landowners in the new scheme.

8.2 Rural Drainage Issues

There are various issues that have been identified in the development of this strategy, as listed in Section 7.5. Many of the issues identified revolve around what could be called the ‘demarcation line’ between CMA responsibilities and Municipal responsibilities. Typically these issues involve drain maintenance in situations where urban or road drains enter rural areas.

8.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities

A workshop between the Catchment Management Authority and the five Local Governments was undertaken to allow discussion regarding the roles and responsibilities with respect to rural drainage. The workshop was chaired by Sinclair Knight Merz. Senior Planners and Engineers from Local Government were invited to the workshop, along with key staff from the West Gippsland CMA.

Minutes from the meeting are presented in Appendix E. Outcomes from the meeting have been incorporated into this strategy.

In urban areas, local government is the suggested lead agency, and in rural areas the CMA is the suggested lead agency. The lead agency in declared irrigation areas would be Southern Rural Water. The lead agency is accountable for ensuring that issues are addressed and, where possible, resolved, but is not necessarily the responsible authority. Another authority may be responsible for undertaking and funding the work required to resolve the issue.

A commitment is required by the lead agency to develop formal partnership agreements with other agencies. An ‘anomaly resolution process’ needs to be developed also, to resolve issues that are not covered by the formal partnership agreements. All parties would need to enter discussions with the aim of resolving the issue.

General acceptance was expressed by the working group for the ‘lead agency’ model.

Municipalities and the CMA will need to formally agree to the model developed at the meeting before it can be successfully applied. Organisations such as Southern Rural Water and VicRoads will sometimes West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 35

be responsible for some works, but could agree to the model on a case by case basis. The lead agency model is intended to cover floodplain issues also, and so has been recommended as part of the floodplain strategy. Through applying the actions contained in the ‘strategy program listing’ (Section 13), a finalised model will be able to be developed. After development and approval of the model, an on-going liaison committee will need to be established to discuss demarcation issues on a case by case basis, as well as any ‘anomalies’ that are not sufficiently covered by the lead agency model. Appropriate actions are listed in Section 13.

8.2.2 Urban/Rural Interface

Most urban drainage systems drain to a natural waterway or water body. The ‘legal point of discharge’ was suggested at the workshop as being the best method of defining the downstream boundary of an urban drainage area. The legal point of discharge would be the point to which the drainage system is maintained by Local Government, beyond which the CMA would have responsibility. The legal point of discharge would generally be located on the first official waterway in the drainage system.

The ‘legal point of discharge’ methodology has been adopted in this strategy to define the downstream transition from urban to rural drainage. Local government would still be responsible for water quality and water quantity entering watercourses at the legal point of discharge.

Urban drainage areas are the responsibility of Local Government. At the workshop, the suggested method for defining ‘urban drainage areas’ was: “including areas and works forming part of urban drainage systems including retarding basins, channels, underground drains, levees, filter areas and the like. Points of transition being specifically nominated to have regard for particular areas and circumstances”. This definition has been adopted in this strategy, to determine the location where Local Government responsibilities end and CMA responsibilities begin. This definition of ‘urban drainage areas’ would be used in conjunction with the ‘legal point of discharge’ terminology described above. The definition of ‘urban drainage areas’ remains fairly open, and thus will require further case by case discussions. These discussions should be held by way of the CMA/Local Government working group discussed in Section 8.2.1, and Section 13.

At the workshop, general agreement was reached that underground/urban drainage and table drains are Local Government responsibilities. In the case of large drains in road reserves that serve a dual purpose (drain both road and surrounding land), it was suggested that;  responsibility for drain maintenance is vested in the authority who has the responsibility for road maintenance (ie, VicRoads or Local Government).  the lead agency (with relevant partnership agreements) could arrange maintenance.  maintenance be done by one authority (decided on for each drain).  single agreement with a number of schedules for different drains. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 36

Partnering agreements between the CMA, Local Government and any other relevant bodies would be best done on a project level - project by project, as proposed at the workshop. The partnership agreement would describe the extent of the drainage scheme and the works required in each instance. These discussions should again be held by way of the CMA/Local Government working group discussed in Section 8.2.1, and Section 13.

8.3 Drainage Scheme Management

This section discusses the management of ‘gazetted’ drainage areas and those areas that are not gazetted but are in need of future communal drainage works. An important issue identified in Section 7.5 is that some communal drains are in poor condition, and in need of maintenance.

8.3.1 Drainage Management

Regular maintenance is necessary on drains and drainage schemes if they are to perform their intended functions. The extent of the maintenance required on each drain will depend on factors including climate, amount of rainfall, flows within the drain, stock access, the grade of the drain, and soil types.

The following issues outlined below should be considered in regards to drain management.

Drain Inspections are required to identify minor problems before they develop into major issues, identify maintenance needs, review effectiveness of maintenance programs and to identify sources of pollution if possible.

Weed Control may be required if excessive weed growth occurs which may obstruct the hydraulic efficiency of the drain and encourage siltation of the drain. It is envisaged that some drains may require chemical weed spraying periodically.

Desilting of drains may be required if excessive silt has caused the capacity of the drain to be reduced. Siltation can cause flooding problems on neighbouring properties. Machinery is used to desilt drains. Drain inspections will determine if desilting is required.

Fencing can be used to protect the drain from stock which can significantly damage the drain banks causing erosion. An assessment of whether fencing is required would need to be made on an individual basis. Drains or parts of drains which are severely damaged by stock should have the highest priority for fencing. However, fencing should be considered whenever opportunities arise. The longer term vision would be to exclude stock from all drains and waterways in the region.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 37

Drainage Structures would need to be assessed to determine their condition and current life expectancies. Structures would include road crossings, floodgates and drainage inlets.

Access along some drains may be required to allow maintenance works to be undertaken. This will be assessed on an individual basis.

Vegetation along the banks of the drain should be encouraged to prevent excessive erosion although there still needs to be some control over vegetation within the waterway to ensure hydraulic efficiency. Vegetation can also interfere with desilting and other works.

Asset Management will be required to provide a clear understanding of the condition of assets and to formalise an inspection and maintenance program to keep assets in an acceptable condition.

8.3.1.1 Current Management of Drains and Drainage Schemes

Historically, Rural Water Authorities, local municipalities and River Improvement Trusts/Waterway Management Authorities have been the only organisations able to raise funds and manage construction and maintenance of drainage works. In recent years, most municipalities have attempted to distance themselves from rural drainage management issues because they believe that this is not part of their core business. With the establishment of the Catchment Management Authorities, the responsibilities for managing rural drainage have become unclear as both the Catchment Management Authority and the Municipal Councils have legislative power to carry out these functions.

Clearly these issues need to be resolved so that a structured management arrangement can be put in place across the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority area to allow: -

 responsibilities and resourcing needs to be clearly understood and thus avoid community confusion and misunderstanding,  rating and financing responsibilities to be consistent and understood,  appropriate strategic management of drainage at a catchment and regional scale,  asset management at a local scale for drainage schemes,

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 38

 the stakeholder responsible for the risks and liabilities to be openly identified and understood.

The five municipalities within the West Gippsland CMA region all have the power to control new drainage works through their individual planning schemes. Discussions with the five Municipalities indicated that no applications in regards to drainage had been received to date. This issue requires further work and discussion. Municipal planning schemes may require amendment to take into account the controls which may be required in regards to new rural drainage. Planning issues are further discussed in Section 9.

8.3.2 Future Management Arrangements

1. For those drainage schemes that currently have no Local Government involvement, the lead agency should be the CMA. The CMA will essentially play a ‘stewardship’ role in these drainage schemes, offering advice where appropriate. If the landholders in the scheme wish for the CMA to undertake works, rating to cover administration and the cost of the works will need to be implemented. As the lead agency, the CMA would be responsible for ensuring that any issues are dealt with, but would not be responsible for funding works. Determining the level of service of the schemes will generally be through landholder groups.

2. Drainage schemes that currently have Local Government involvement would be best facilitated by Local Government into the future, except in instances where both Local Government and the CMA agree to a transfer of responsibilities. In drainage schemes where Local Government remains involved, Local Government would be the lead agency, and the CMA may be required to offer advice as appropriate.

3. For rural communal drainage networks that require future works but currently have no Local Government involvement, the lead agency would be the CMA. The CMA would take on a stewardship role, recovering costs of works and administration through rating of those who benefit.

In all instances, the lead agency would play a stewardship role, but management of the system would be performed by a local management group. The local management group would determine the priorities and implement a works program on an annual basis. The lead agency will provide direction and leadership to the groups and ensure adequate maintenance programs are implemented. The lead agency would also West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 39

provide the rating function, collecting funds as required to undertake maintenance.

Figure 8.1 presents a model, which could be used in the future to manage drains. The local drain management committee would be an informal group which would be responsible for the maintenance of the drain or drainage scheme. The overseeing agency (CMA or Shire) would provide technical input when required and would ensure adequate maintenance programs were being implemented.

Figure 8.1: Proposed Drain Management Model

Technical Input and

overseeing role

either CMA or Shires

Local Drain Management

Committee

Drain Management and

Annual Maintenance

Program Implemented

Most drains and drainage schemes would benefit from the development of management plans by the local management group. Drain/drainage scheme management plans would minimise the adverse impacts of the drainage system, and aid in maintenance and management of the system. Management plans are further discussed in Section 10.

Programs and actions required to implement these recommended management arrangements are presented in Section 13. Drainage scheme specific management arrangements (both current and recommended) are presented in Appendix C.

8.3.3 Benefits and costs of management actions

The major benefits from the management actions will include :

 Well maintained drainage systems  hydraulically efficient drains  reduced drain erosion

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 40

 reduced risk of structural failure  Sense of ownership by Landowners  Landowners involved in direct management of their respective drainage system  Uniformity across CMA region  CMA input into works conducted on drains  Detrimental effects on environment reduced  improvements in water quality through CMA input  monitoring of water quality through performance assessment  improvements in in-stream and riparian conditions  reduced downstream water quality impacts  Reduced impacts on downstream users

The actual cost of these management actions is difficult to quantify, although the landowners benefiting from the drain will meet the cost of managing and maintaining these drains. Costs can be minimised through the assistance of the local community by reporting any problems found within the drainage systems quickly and providing the “hands on” management of the drainage systems.

Maintenance requirements will vary from drain to drain therefore maintenance and inspection programs will also vary. Each drainage scheme will need to be assessed individually. A preliminary assessment has been done in Table C1 in Appendix C.

There will be some administration costs involved with the recommended management arrangements. Costs and cost sharing arrangements are further discussed in Section 12.

Timelines for implementation of the recommended management arrangements are shown in the ‘Vision, Objectives and Targets’ section (Section 3).

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 41

9. Planning Issues

Planning has been identified as an issue that requires attention, as developments sometimes make insufficient allowance for their impacts on drainage and associated drainage costs. This was highlighted at the meeting between the CMA and Local Government, as presented in the minutes of the meeting (Appendix E). The links with the municipal planning schemes are discussed in the following sections.

Actions and programs that are necessary to achieve the desired outcomes for drainage planning are presented in Section 13.

9.1 Structure of Victorian Planning Controls

In considering the implications of planning control over activities that could affect drainage management, the ultimate issue relates to the forms of development that affect drainage management and the extent to which these can be subjected to planning control. In discussing these issues, it is necessary to outline the structure and management of the landuse planning control system in Victoria.

The Planning and Environment Act provides for the control of land use and associated development and works through planning schemes which operate within each municipal area. The planning controls can be made specific to each area, type of use or development and can vary widely within any municipality to reflect differences in locational, social, environmental or economic factors.

In Victoria, all planning schemes are being reformed to use a model structure which includes the following three elements:  statements of state policy  the municipal strategic statement (MSS) - a statement of the overall landuse objectives and supporting strategy, ie. the strategy which will be followed to achieve the stated objectives) together with statements of local planning policy (the means by which the strategies will be implemented)  landuse planning controls, being a suite of zones, overlays and additional provisions which apply to specific landuses.

The MSS is required to be consistent with the state policies. Local policies are to be consistent with, and drawn from, the MSS. Landuse controls are meant to implement the MSS and local policies. A key feature of this hierarchy of controls is the government’s intention that they be performance based, rather than rely on prescriptive statements. This performance based requirement underlies the adoption of the strategy/policy/planning control approach to the structure of planning schemes.

The particular importance of this rationale, insofar as it may affect drainage management, is that it is not appropriate to introduce specific planning

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 42

controls which are directed to ends which are not adequately reflected in the MSS and relevant local policies.

In the new format planning schemes, there are four principle classes of control over the use and/or development of land. Specified uses or development may: 1. be able to proceed without any requirements for approval (this may be subject to the proposal conforming with specified conditions and subject to approvals required pursuant to the fourth point below) 2. be subject to the issue of a planning permit (which can be made subject to conditions chosen by the responsible authority or referral authorities and which usually creates opportunities for third party appeals) 3. be prohibited or 4. be subject to other forms of development approval (which usually do not create opportunities for third party appeals).

If a planning authority wishes to change the municipal strategies or policies which are embodied in a planning scheme, this can only be done by amending the scheme to reflect these new strategies. Similarly, a change to the structure of the approvals procedures also requires an amendment to the planning scheme.

9.2 Planning Controls Over Drainage Management

The main issues of concern, in the case of drainage management, relate to the need to provide planning control over:  construction of roads and buildings, (which create additional drainage requirements)  control of subdivision (as this may create entitlements to, or expectations of, further development)  construction of drains or earthworks which can impede or divert drainage or floodwaters.

The key point of control, in relation to both drainage and floodplain management, apart from the control of landuse, is the requirement of a planning permit for all buildings or works in an UFZ (Urban Floodway Zone), FO (Floodway Overlay) and LSIO (Land Subject to Inundation Overlay) (other than for any buildings or works that may be exempted from a permit requirement by being listed in the schedule which is attached to each of these clauses). “Works” is defined in the Planning & Environment Act 1987 as “includes any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land including the removal, destruction or lopping of trees and the removal of vegetation or topsoil”. This definition would include all activities that would affect the management of drainage systems or floodways, including the construction of drains, excavation, filling and the construction of levees.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 43

Where drainage schemes are situated in one or other of the three rural zones - Rural Zone (RZ), Environmental Rural Zone (ERZ) or Rural Living Zone (RLZ) and are not situated in a FO or LSIO, the available controls over the construction of drains will be found in the schedules to the zones. These schedules provide for the control of excavation, filling and landforming. Each council can define the extent to which each of these activities can be carried out without a permit requirement (eg. within the Shire of South Gippsland, in the RZ, no permit is required to fill, excavate or landform unless it exceeds 2 metres in height or depth. Beyond that limit, a planning permit is required. Currently, most drains within the South Gippsland Shire would be under 2 metres deep and would not require a permit. Schedules for these zones may need to be changed to provide the appropriate control.

Local Government prepare drainage schemes for urban areas where new development is proposed so that both quantity and quality of drainage waters is kept to the pre development levels. Development should recognise the impact on downstream landholders, and cover the costs associated with works needed to minimise both downstream impacts and environmental impacts.

9.3 Role of the CMA - Management of Drainage

Permit applications may be referred to the CMA under a number of provisions of the Planning & Environment Act:  Section 55 referrals, whereby the responsible authority must refer permit applications to the relevant floodplain management authority (applies to all permit applications in the UFZ, FO and LSIO)  Section 52 notification, where the responsible authority notifies parties who may, in the responsible authority’s opinion, be materially affected by the application  other notifications where the responsible authority considers it desirable that it have the benefit of some other authority’s views, or where it is required to take these views into account (eg. in the FO, the responsible authority must consider “any comments of the waterway management authority”.

Section 55 referrals allow the CMA to direct whether a permit must be refused by the council or that conditions specified by the authority relating to floodplain or drainage management must be imposed on the permit.

This provision also allows the CMA to enter into agreements with councils that would effectively delegate the authority’s decision-making role to the council in relation to certain types of development or landuse generally, or certain developments and landuses in specified parts of the FO and LSIO.

From the point of view of the municipal council, as responsible authority under the Planning & Environment Act, the effective role of the CMA is to:  advise the council from time to time, in a general way, of issues relating to landuse and development implications of this plan, and West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 44

 to make timely decisions on matters that must be referred to it under Section 55 of the Act.

9.4 Incorporation of Planning Controls into Planning Schemes

Where the CMA is concerned with the management of drainage schemes not in a FO or LSIO, its powers to control development can only be derived under the schedules to the rural zones. If these schedules do not provide sufficient controls, it would be necessary to require the schedules to be amended, which can only be undertaken by the council, as planning authority. If schedules are amended to create additional situations where drainage schemes require a planning permit, it would be important that appropriate amendments be made to the MSS and local planning polices, to ensure consistency across the scheme in relation to this issue.

There is no requirement for a council to refer permit applications in a drainage scheme to the CMA. Referral can be obtained through negotiation (Section 52 notification) or through other informal arrangements. The CMA could provide councils with maps of the drainage schemes, which will provide greater certainty that the CMA will be advised of all relevant applications.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 45

10. Specific Drain Management Plans

This strategy has identified a number of drainage issues which may need to be addressed through the development of specific drain management plans.

Drain management plans can take on a variety of different forms and can be very detailed and complex or quite simple.

Drain management plans will address issues such as :  Who is responsible for the management and maintenance of the specific drain.  Who should be rated to provide funds for operation and maintenance works  Determine a methodology for the prioritisation of works  If necessary, determine what works are required to reinstate works back to an acceptable standard and then maintain works at the acceptable standard.

Drains and drainage schemes that require Drain Management Plans are:

1. Sandy Point 2. Hedley (Nine Mile Creek) 3. Corner Inlet Drainage Area 4. Holey Plains 5. Black Swamp 6. Pound Creek 7. Waratah 8. Yanakie (Red Swamp)

Drain Management Plan Priorities have been determined based on the perceived priorities within the West Gippsland CMA region and are as follows:

1. Moe Drain (and lateral drains in the Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Area) - sections of this drain are currently in a very poor condition. A joint West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 46

study between the Baw Baw Shire and the West Gippsland CMA is planned to evaluate the problems and find a solution. This will include future structural works and maintenance requirements.

2. Kilmany Park region - The condition of the main Kilmany drain that flows to the Kilmany Bank is very poor. There is evidence of high saline water tables in the valley surrounding the main Kilmany drain. Funding for the operation of the Kilmany pump that currently helps drain some of the land needs to be resolved, as Kilmany landholders now pay the same CMA rate as any other landholder in the region.

3. Lower Tarwin region - The assessment and maintenance of the floodgates and seawalls/levees in this area requires some form of management, as the condition and standard of the assets varies from property to property. Some of the assets identified (eg levees) affect only the property on which they are located, although other assets (seawalls/floodgates) have the potential to impact on neighbouring properties.

Some cleaning of the Fish Creek drain is currently carried out by individual landholders. Although landholders don’t appear to be particularly concerned about maintenance of the drain, a drainage management plan would be beneficial.

4. Latrobe River area - Floodgates along the Latrobe River require maintenance and occasional replacement. Many of the floodgates have a beneficial effect only for some of the landholders close to the Latrobe River, and have traditionally been maintained through the rating structure of the Latrobe River Improvement Trust. Some maintenance needs (eg, desilting) have been identified for the drains and modified creeks entering the Latrobe River (eg, Blind Joes Creek, Sheepwash Creek, Four Mile Creek Drain, Purvis Drain). Re-introduction of the previous rating structure is recommended.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 47

11. Performance Monitoring

Performance monitoring will be an important output for CMA activities, especially in regards to reporting their performance to the State Government and the community. It will also help in seeking future funding for catchment management programs.

11.1 Aims and Methodology of Performance Assessment

Catchment Management Authority aims in regards to drainage areas should be to; 1. Ensure drainage schemes and networks function to their intended level of performance. 2. Minimise the impacts of drainage on receiving waters, both in terms of quality and quantity.

Actions taken to achieve these aims (eg water quality monitoring) should also reflect the desire to improve the long term productivity from these regions, and enable regional communities to be resilient and prosperous.

The most appropriate method of assessing the performance of the strategy in the drainage areas would be some form of qualitative drain condition assessment associated with a water quality monitoring program. A methodology could be developed in the future which essentially adopts the ‘Index of Stream Condition’ (DNRE, 1997), although alters a number of the components of the index. Alteration of some of the components of the Index of Stream Condition would be necessary, as management objectives for drains and modified creeks generally varies from that of streams and rivers.

The ISC reference manual states that the “ISC is intended to be used to measure the effectiveness of the government’s integrated waterway management program but may not be detailed enough for use as a performance indicator for any one particular program”. An adaption of the ISC is considered to be a satisfactory performance indicator for the effectiveness of the drainage strategy.

An Index of Drain Condition could include assessment of physical drain form, drainside zone, water quality, condition of structures, whilst also considering the amount of money spent by the management group.

11.2 Water Quality Monitoring in West and South Gippsland

There are a range of organisations monitoring water quality in West and South Gippsland. The program that has the most potential to be applied to drainage areas would be the Waterwatch program, as it has an extensive coverage with monitoring sites located near some of the drainage areas. The Waterwatch program monitors around 310 sites in West and South Gippsland. Some of the sites are located in or near drainage areas, but generally are located on creeks and rivers, rather than drains. Frequency of sampling depends on the site, although is generally weekly or monthly. There are quality control processes used in the program. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 48

11.3 Water quality monitoring in the MacAlister Irrigation District

The MacAlister Irrigation District (MID) contributes irrigation drainage water to the Avon, MacAlister, Thomson, and Latrobe rivers. There are a range of organisations that monitor water quality in the MacAlister Irrigation District, a listing of which can be found in SKM (1999a).

There are two types of monitoring programs run by Southern Rural Water in the MID. One involves spot monitoring at a number of sites, and the other monitors continuously at fixed sites. There are two continuous monitoring stations currently in place (as shown in Figure 7.2), and a further three are planned. One of the remaining three continuous monitors will be installed on Nuntin Creek, and Southern Rural Water indicate that they intend to consult the CMA before finalising locations of the other two continuous monitoring sites.

11.4 Environment Protection Authority Monitoring Requirements

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) do not require monitoring of drainage areas, unless there are specific works that may have either short or long term detrimental environmental effects. If there were any earthworks done in drains (for example, drain remodelling) the EPA would require some form of monitoring of water quality, depending upon the location and nature of the works.

The EPA’s Schedule F5 covers the Latrobe River catchment, and documents the indicators used for water quality monitoring, stating the appropriate levels of the indicators. A recent review of monitoring has been conducted in Gippsland , and a central data base of water quality information will be developed that will supersede some aspects of Schedule F5 in regards to water quality monitoring programs. The South Gippsland region falls under the EPA’s ‘General provisions for Waters of Victoria’ policy, which documents the water quality indicators and requirements for the indicators.

In the future, the EPA will develop standards for aquatic life in modified ecosystems, which will probably cover the majority of the ‘modified creeks’ identified in the West Gippsland CMA region. These standards will be specific to the region.

11.5 Recommended Water Quality Monitoring Program for Gazetted Drainage Areas

If sufficient funds are available and monitoring of non-irrigation drainage areas is a priority of the CMA, a monitoring program could be established to monitor the water quality entering and leaving the drainage areas. This would be beneficial in those areas where assessment of the effects of management on the water quality is of the most interest, and could be combined into some broader form of performance assessment procedure. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 49

Water quality monitoring would be best done in conjunction with the local management groups where they exist, or landholders.

Monitoring of the quality of water contributed by non-irrigation farming land outside of the drainage areas would form part of the water quality monitoring program that would be recommended as part of the upcoming waterway strategy. Non-irrigated farmland covers much of the West Gippsland region, and generally runs into natural drainage lines and waterways rather than the modified creeks and main drains identified in this report.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 50

12. Cost Sharing and Funding

A major factor influencing the implementation of the drainage strategy within the West Gippsland region is the issue of cost sharing and funding. Cost sharing and funding opportunities will form an important component of the success of the strategy outcomes.

This section broadly identifies the basic cost sharing principles that are used in formalising equitable and acceptable cost sharing arrangements and will also help in determining the shared responsibilities between landholders, the community and governments.

12.1 Cost Sharing Principles

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has adopted the following cost sharing principles;

 the full cost of providing services to specific identifiable beneficiaries or polluters should be recovered by way of charges to them;  costs of public benefits or impact management which are unable to be attributed and charged to specific beneficiaries or polluters should be treated as community service obligations; and  where costs are subsidised by government, they should be defined explicitly so that unsustainable precedents are not established.

The cost sharing principles adopted by COAG are quite similar to those adopted by the State Government of Victoria in the Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters (State Government of Victoria, 1995).

The two methods which can be applied in developing a cost-sharing framework are:

 the polluter pays principle This principle is often difficult to apply as it is difficult to identify individual polluters such as non-point source pollution from farming activities.  the beneficiary pays principle This principle involves distributing cost between stakeholders who benefit from the plan.

The beneficiary pays principle should apply across the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority in drainage areas, although where it is clear and easily identifiable, polluters should also be made to pay.

12.2 Proposed Cost Sharing Arrangements

Costs of works and associated administration should be recovered through rating of beneficiaries. Therefore, there should be no direct cost to the lead agency for involvement in works and administration of works required by local management groups.

Administration costs of providing general advice and assistance to local drainage management groups would be relatively small, and could not be West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 51

easily recovered from the local management groups. These costs would have some benefits, in line with broader CMA objectives, so could be considered to be one of the intended functions of the CMA. Establishment of local management groups would involve some administration costs, but would again offer benefits in line with CMA objectives.

Costs associated with the lead agency role (for all rural drainage issues) would include:  receiving details of issues  facilitating discussion and negotiation  organising responsible organisations to resolve the issue  ensuring that the issue has been satisfactorily resolved

Historically, this cost would have been covered by Local Government, and occasionally by the DNRE or River Improvement Trusts. There are a range of different cost sharing options that could be implemented to recover lead agency costs. The recommended method of cost recovery and cost sharing is;  In instances where the lead agency is rating a particular area for drainage works, all administration costs should be recovered through the rate applied to the area.  Administration costs for investigating, facilitating discussion, and negotiation in areas that do not have a specific drainage rate should be funded through general lead agency funds. If the lead agency is the CMA, the administration cost would be funded through the general CMA rate.

Discussions on the issue of cost sharing would be best performed through the on-going liason committee discussed in Section 8.2.1 and Section 13.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 52

13. Action Program and CMA Costs

To aid successful implementation of the Drainage Strategy, programs need to be set in place to ensure that the objectives and targets of the strategy are met. A costed action program has been developed, and is presented in this chapter.

Vision

Strategy Programs

Program 1: Drainage Impact Management

Program 2: Drainage Scheme Management

Program 3: Specific Drainage Management Plans

Program 4: Performance Monitoring

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 53

Program 1: Drainage Impact Management

Action 1 (Targets 1 and 3): Continue discussions with Local Government through a working group to finalise a client-focussed process for resolution of drainage issues, using the ‘lead agency’ model outlined in this strategy.

Tasks:  Initiate a working group composed of representatives from the CMA, Local Government, and other relevant organisations.  Agree on and finalise the model to be used for resolution of drainage issues.  Agree on the lead agencies’ respective boundaries and principles of the ‘legal point of discharge’ with each individual council.

Discussion: It would be beneficial to involve SRW, DNRE, and VicRoads in these discussions.

Action 2 (Targets 3,4,5, and 7): CMA to provide lead agency activities for rural drainage within the WGCMA region.

Tasks:  Seek funding for a rural drainage officer to coordinate CMA drainage functions.  Coordinate activities between Local Government, the CMA, and other relevant authorities.

Discussion: Current resources are not matching the needs of the community. Appointment of a drainage officer to coordinate both Local Government and the CMA to carry out their functions under their respective charters would address these needs.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 54

Action 3 (Target 1): Initiate a network of representatives from the WGCMA and all five shires to resolve drainage issues that require some form of cost sharing arrangements, or ‘responsibility’ discussions.

Tasks:  Initiate the on-going network, in line with outcomes of Action 1.  Agreements for conduct and operation of the network need to be put in place.  Issues discussed individually (ie, ‘project by project basis’) between CMA and relevant Shire (or other organisation).  Formal meeting between CMA and each Shire (or any other relevant organisations) twice a year.  Partnering agreements made by network representatives on a project by project basis.

Discussion: This action will arise from the results of Action 1, and would be part of the anomaly resolution process. An on-going network of representatives is a component of the proposed lead agency model. Depending on the outcomes of Action 1, other organisations may need to be involved.

Action 4 (Targets 8 and 10): CMA to investigate the opportunity for a ‘side entry pit stencilling scheme’ involving local schools with the use of appropriate logos such as “Drains into LaTrobe River” to heighten community awareness of drainage impacts.

Tasks:  CMA to decide on locations to target.  CMA to discuss a joint program with Local Government (responsible for urban drainage, and side entry pits)  CMA to involve local community groups (ie, schools, Rotary, Scouting).

Discussion: A joint program would be a positive and cooperative relationship between both organisations. This action would benefit water quality, act as a good educational tool, and promote the activities of the CMA.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 55

Action 5 (Targets 4, 8, and 10): The CMA and Local Government to investigate opportunities for wetland sites in each municipality to minimise downstream environmental effects of drainage.

Tasks:  Prioritise the potential wetland sites in the CMA region.  Initiate discussions with Municipalities or other organisations where appropriate.  Develop a program for wetland introduction.  Investigate funding sources for purchase of available land where appropriate.  Implement wetland program.

Discussion: Wetlands help to minimise the detrimental environmental effects of drainage. Development of wetlands will be in line with many CMA objectives.

Action 6 (Targets 4 and 7): The CMA to encourage activities in drainage schemes that minimise effects on the environment and downstream users.

Tasks:  Develop an effective information brochure regarding best practise for drainage management.  This action can be implemented through CMA (and Local Government) contact with local management groups.  Development of drainage management plans would provide a good opportunity to meet this action.

Discussion: The development of the drain management plans for each local management group will assist in the implementation of this action.

Action 7 (Targets 1 and 4): The CMA to work with Local Government to amend planning schemes to include drainage and related planning controls.

Tasks:  CMA to work with Local Government to standardise drainage plan controls over region.  CMA to enter in discussions with Local Government with the aim of amending planning schemes where appropriate.

Discussion: Some of the components of the planning schemes limit the control of Local Government to regulate drainage works in the three rural living zones. This may be an action that is required across the whole state.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 56

Action 8 (Target 4): CMA to complete the actions listed in the ‘Conflicts and Issues’ section of this report.

Tasks:  Work towards resolving the issues listed, through consultation with the relevant individuals and organisations.

Discussion: Many of the conflicts and issues listed require the CMA to finalise policy in certain areas. Firm actions and decisions will be required in most cases.

Program 2: Drainage Scheme Management

Action 9 (Target 3, 6, and 7): Lead Agencies to play a stewardship role for drainage schemes, facilitating and supporting the schemes particularly where they assist the adoption of sustainable land management practises.

Tasks:  Initiate contact and develop relationships with committees and landholders in the various drainage schemes.  Develop an effective information brochure regarding best practise for drainage management.

Discussion: This action may be assisted through using the resources of programs such as ‘WaterWatch’. This action could be performed in conjunction with Action 6.

Action 10 (Targets 6, 7, and 10): The CMA to encourage effective asset management in drainage schemes where they are acting as the lead agency.

Tasks:  Initiate contact and develop relationships with local management groups.  Facilitate development of local management groups in relevant areas where no group currently exists.  Encourage development of drainage management plans (done in conjunction with Action 11).

Discussion: Effective asset management requires a coordinated approach, especially for communal drainage lines and communal seawalls/levees.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 57

Program 3: Specific Drainage Management Plans

Action 11 (Targets 5, 6): In conjunction with local government, develop and implement stormwater management plans for urban areas. This should also consider drainage from new developments.

Tasks:  Initiate discussions through the CMA/Local Government committee outlined in Action 2.  Encourage CMA input into the plans where possible.  CMA to encourage best practise design of drainage networks for new development.

Discussion: Stormwater management plans should also outline how drainage works for new developments will be funded.

Action 12 (Target 6): Drain management and drainage scheme management plans to be prepared for priority areas as listed in this strategy document.

Tasks:  Encourage and assist local management groups to develop management plans.  Provide CMA guidance as appropriate, with the aim of developing ongoing relationships with local management groups and landholders.

Discussion: Drain management plans assist in the prioritisation of works, and will assist the lead agency in dealings with the local management group.

Action 13 (Target 8): The CMA to advise Local Government of any issues relating to land use and development as these issues occur.

Tasks:  CMA to make timely decisions on any matters referred to it from Local Government under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act.  CMA to advise Local Government of implications for landuse and development arising from this strategy.

Discussion: The CMA could provide councils with maps of the drainage schemes, which will provide greater certainty that the CMA will be advised of all relevant applications.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 58

Program 4: Performance Monitoring

Action 14 (Targets 8 and 9): Criteria to be developed for performance assessment of drainage schemes / drains.

Tasks:  CMA to develop criteria for routinely assessing condition.  Investigate adapting current monitoring program (particularly WaterWatch) for use in water quality performance assessment.  Implement the finalised performance assessment program.

Discussion: A method of performance monitoring developed through modification of the ‘Index of Stream Condition’ could be used to assess performance of CMA actions.

Action 15 (Targets 8 and 9): CMA to liase with SRW about formalising CMA access to SRW monitoring data collected at outfalls.

Tasks:  CMA to initiate discussion with SRW. This could be done in conjunction with Action 1.  CMA to incorporate information obtained from the data into its water quality program.  CMA to continue development of relations with SRW, with the aim of involving the CMA in water quality functions carried out in the irrigation areas.

Discussion: SRW are responsible for water quality from irrigation areas inside the MacAlister Irrigation District. Outfalls from these areas enter waterways managed by the CMA.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 59

Table 13.1: Costs and Funding of Actions

Funding Source Actions Prior CMA ($) Local Other Tota Governmen ($) ity t ($) l ($) Program 1: Drainage Impact Management Action 1 Very 3,000 6,000 1,000 10,000 High Action 2 (annually) Very 30,000 10,000 40,000 High Action 3 (annually) Very 2,000 2,000 1,000 5,000 High Action 4 Low 5,000 5,000 10,000 Action 5 Low 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 Action 6 Medium 5,000 5,000 Action 7 Medium 2,000 3,000 5,000 Action 8 Very 3,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 High Program 2: Drainage Scheme Management Action 9 High 5,000 5,000 10,000 Action 10 Medium 3,000 3,000 Program 3: Specific Drainage Management Plans Action 11 Low 5,000 5,000 10,000 Action 12 Medium 5,000 5,000 10,000 Action 13 Medium 5,000 5,000 Program 4: Performance Monitoring Action 14 Low 10,000 10,000 (development) Action 14 (Av. Low 2,000 1,000 3,000 annual implementation cost) Action 15 Low 1,000 1,000 TOTAL COST : 91,000 47,000 9,000 147,00 0

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 60

14. References

Argent R.M. and Ewing S.A. (1996), Rural Drainage in Victoria - Scoping Study, Natural Resources and Environment.

Bass Coast Shire, Municipal Strategic Statement & Local Planning Policies -Exhibition Document (1997)

Catchment and Land Protection Act, 1994.

Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria’s Catchment Management Authorities, Draft Interim Guidelines (1997)

La Trobe Shire, La Trobe Shire Strategy Plan (1997)

La Trobe Shire, Municipal Strategic Statement (1998)

Local Government Act, 1989.

Macalister Irrigation District, Nutrient Reduction Plan (1998)

Protecting Water Quality in Central Gippsland. Publication 444, February 1995. Environment Protection Authority.

Shire of Baw Baw, Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework (1997)

Shire of La Trobe, Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework (1997)

Shire of Wellington, Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework (1997)

Sinclair Knight Merz (1999a), Surface Water Quality and Quantity Modelling for the Macalister Irrigation District and Downstream Areas - Scoping Study, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Sinclair Knight Merz (1999b), Floodplain Management Strategy. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority.

South Gippsland Shire, Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework (1997)

Southern Rural Water, Dept Natural Resources and Environment (1998), Macalister Irrigation District Nutrient Reduction Plan, November 1998.

State Government of Victoria (1995), Nutrient Management Strategy for Victorian Inland Waters.

Water Act, 1989.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 61

West Gippsland Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board, Regional Catchment Strategy (1997)

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 62

Appendix A - Personal Communication

General West Gippsland CMA region  Wayne Gilmour (WGCMA)  David McKenzie (EPA Traralgon)  David Tiller (EPA Melbourne - water quality monitoring)

Lake Wellington Catchment  Phil Taylor (WGCMA)  Ross Scott (WGCMA)  Rod Johnson (WGCMA)  David Balfour (Latrobe Drainage Area - (WGCMA committee member))  Keith Heywood (WGCMA committee member)  Richard Crook (Holey Plains area)  George Stockdale (Sheepyard creek/Flynns ck)  Brian Frawley (landowner, Heart Morass)  Bill Waite (Bill lives near the Toongabbie creek junction with the Purvis drain)  Peter Stuart (WGCMA committee member)  George Kermode (WGCMA committee member)  Jack Dwyer (WGCMA committee member)  Dick Chester (WGCMA committee member)  Lorry Hamlyn (ex. AMRIT)  Jamie Ewert (SRW, Maffra)  Ian Kitchen (SRW, Maffra)

South Gippsland  Mel Gibson (WGCMA)  John Turner (WGCMA)  Rod Lomax (ex. South Gippsland Shire Secretary)  Rod Cooper (ex. South Gippsland Shire Engineer)  Stuart Ferrier (ex. Alberton Shire)  John Cuttriss (Familiar with drainage in the Inverloch region of South Gippsland)  Garry Chisholm (Bass Coast Shire, planner)  Ron Barton (landowner near the mouth of the Albert River - would like quicker removal of floodwater)  Coral Lannigan (landowner near the mouth of the Albert River - would like quicker removal of floodwater)  Trevor Campbell (Lives near the Boolarra-Mirboo North road. Shire drain terminates in the middle of his property)  Ted Fisher (Tarwin River system, Fish creek, and Pound Creek Drainage Area)  Ken Fisher (Tarwin River system, Fish creek)  Gerard McRae (WGCMA - Tarwin Bass Management Group)  Des McRae (WGCMA - Tarwin Bass Management Group)  Bob McRae (Landholder, Tarwin River/Fish Creek area)

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 63

Black Swamp

 Neil Roussac  Neville Roussac  Ross Marriott  Leon Vuillermin  David Vuillermin  George Snell

Trafalgar Meadows

 Ern Swingler  Jack Griffin  Ben Rowney  Max Gibson

Waratah

 Phil Gale  Jack Pilkington

Yanakie (Red Swamp)

 Les Wagstaff  Greg Cook  Peter Crawford

Corner Inlet

 Brian McGlead  Terry Dessent  Keith Simcock (South Gippsland Shire)

Hedley (Nine Mile Creek)

 Kevin Opray  Ross Williamson (Parks Victoria (Foster). Ross was consulted in regards to Gullet drain)  Doug Conn  David Conn

Grip

 Rod Cooper  Stuart Ferrier

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 64

Sandy Point

 Rick Bowron  Jill Bowron  Jack Pilkington

Shady Creek

 Rod Cooper  Stuart Ferrier

Pound Creek

 Alan Smith  Alan Price  Ted Fisher

Nilma

 Wally Brown  Stan Davey  Bob Young  Ray Copley

Kilmany

 Norm Gooch  Geoff Gooch  Peter Chrzanowski

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 65

Appendix B - Inventory of Communal Drains and Drainage Schemes (Maps of Drainage Schemes are shown alphabetically)

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 66

Appendix C - Drainage Scheme Management Arrangements

Table C1: Past, Current, and Proposed Management Arrangements of Existing Drainage Schemes

Name Origin Current Gazett Area Past Management Current Management Comments Proposed Future Management al Municipa e date (ha) Arrangements Arrangements Arrangements Munici lity pality Black South South 18/8/3 890 Shire involved in Landholders now Occasional sea wall Continue self management by Swamp Gippsl Gippslan 7 rating and managing manage the drainage repair and drain landholders with the CMA and d drainage area until area. cleaning needed. providing technical assistance about 10 years ago. as required. Trafal Narrac Baw Baw 21/8/1 5140 Narracan Shire, with a Baw Baw Shire, with a Operated as a trust Continue with advisory committee gar an 8 trust acting as an trust acting as an until 1992. Trust now facilitated by Local Government Meadow advisory body to the advisory body to the acts as an advisory for the time being. Current s shire. The shire shire. The shire committee to the Shire. joint CMA/Shire study to rated the properties currently rates the Shire levies a special determine future arrangements. within the drainage properties within the charge. area. drainage area. Warata South South 14/9/6 1227 Property owners have Property owners. Property owners have Continue self management by h Gippsl Gippslan 6 managed the area since always maintained this landholders with the CMA and d it’s construction. system and are satisfied providing technical assistance with self management. as required. Yanaki South South 10/1/6 1140 Shire managed area Now managed by a Management committee Continue self management by e (Red Gippsl Gippslan 8 until about 10 or 12 committee of quite active, and landholders with the CMA Swamp) and d years ago. landholders functions well. providing technical assistance as required. Corner South South 21/10/ 4766 Shire managed the ‘Corner Inlet Seawalls seem to be Continue with advisory committee Inlet Gippsl Gippslan 64 drainage area, with Drainage Area relatively well facilitated by Local Government. and d advise from ‘Corner Advisory Committee’ maintained in this CMA to provide guidance and Inlet Drainage Area manages the drainage scheme. advice where appropriate. Advisory Committee’ area, with assistance The shire rated the from the Shire. The properties within the shire currently rates drainage area. the properties within the drainage area Sandy South South 9/9/47 416 Management has in the Management of the Some sections of the sea Continue self management by Point Gippsl Gippslan past been done by drainage area assets wall are in poor landholders with the CMA and d landholders with some is done by individual condition. Only four providing technical assistance input from the Shire. landholders. landholders in this as required. scheme. Hedley South South 4/3/36 2428 Shire of Alberton No management Converted to become part The setting up of a local (Nine Gippsl Gippslan * River Improvement arrangements at of the Alberton Shire drainage management group should Mile and d and Trust, with close present RIT (apart from the be considered. Drain cleaning Creek) and Wellingt associations with the component in the S.G. works have recently been done, Albert on Alberton Shire Shire). The RIT carried so group may wish to focus on on out a major drainage water quality. upgrade in 1986/87, paid for by landholders in the drainage area. Grip South South 15/12/ 224 Managed by Shire as Minimal management Abolished 21/10/64. Has If drainage/flooding in this Gippsl Gippslan 37 part of the Corner needed. Managed by not been maintained area becomes a problem, it would and d Inlet Drainage Area Shire as part of the since construction but best be dealt with through the Corner Inlet Drainage appears to still be Corner Inlet Drainage Advisory Area functioning as intended. Committee. Shady South South 3/3/54 1255 No requirement for on- Managed by Shire as Has not been maintained No works needed at present but Creek Gippsl Gippslan going maintenance part of Corner Inlet since construction but if future works are needed a and d since construction. Drainage Area. appears to still be Local Management Committee would Managed by Shire as functioning as intended. need to be set up. part of Corner Inlet Seawalls are private. Drainage Area. Pound Wooray South 27/7/6 Setup of the scheme Landholders maintain Only two main Continue self management by Creek l Gippslan 5 was managed by the assets on their own landholders in this landholders with the CMA d Shire. There was a properties. drainage area. providing technical assistance committee set up as required. before and during construction. Latrob Traral La Trobe 15/7/3 Latrobe River Converted to become part Continue management by CMA e gon 5 Improvement Trust of the Latrobe RIT on through it’s waterway program. River 14/6/50. Work in this Costs for maintenance of drainage area was floodgates etc may need to be performed solely on the funded through a local River. management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). Latrob Roseda Wellingt 16/11/ Latrobe River Converted to become part Continue management by CMA e le on 38 Improvement Trust of the Latrobe RIT on through it’s waterway program. 14/6/50. Work in this Costs for maintenance of drainage area was floodgates etc may need to be performed solely on the funded through a local River. management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). Latrob Morwel La Trobe 12/12/ Latrobe River Converted to become part Continue management by CMA e l 38 Improvement Trust of the Latrobe RIT on through it’s waterway program. 14/6/50. Work in this Costs for maintenance of drainage area was floodgates etc may need to be performed solely on the funded through a local River. management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). Nilma Warrag Baw Baw 1/11/6 414 Managed by the Nilma The Settlers Creek The Nilma Drainage Trust Continue management by CMA ul 1 ha. Drainage Trust, run by Awareness Group has was essentially involved through it’s waterway program, the Warragul Shire up taken over many of with drain cleaning and working with the local Awareness until about 10 years the functions of the some straightening. Group where appropriate. ago. Nilma Drainage Trust - drain cleaning not seen as being necessary in the future. Upper Narrac Baw Baw 25/1/3 202 Managed by the Upper Activities of the Originally a trust, Continue management by CMA Latrob an 9 ha. Latrobe Drainage Trust trust now performed which evolved into a through it’s waterway program. e in conjunction with by the WGCMA. sub-committee of the the Narracan Shire. Narracan Shire. Activities were confined to the Latrobe River. Middle Wooray South 4/3/42 Formerly covered by Converted to become part Continue management by CMA and l Gippslan the Tarwin Bass of the RIT on 26/7/50. through it’s waterway program. Lower d Waterways Authority. Costs for maintenance of Tarwin floodgates etc may need to be funded through a local management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). Heart Avon Wellingt 22/11/ Formerly covered by No local management Abolished on the If floodgates require communal Morass on 39 the Latrobe River group exists in this 14/6/50. maintenance, CMA to establish a Improvement Trust. area. local management group. Holey Roseda Wellingt 17/3/5 931 Formerly covered by No local management Works in drainage area Continue management by CMA

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 67

Plains le on 4 the Latrobe River group exists in this would have involved through it’s waterway program. Improvement Trust. area. development and Costs for maintenance of maintenance of Blind floodgates etc may need to be Joe’s Creek. funded through a local management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). Seaspr Roseda Wellingt 27/1/6 259 This is a small drainage If future works are needed a ay le on 0 area near the town of Local Management Committee would Seaspray, related to need to be set up, and would flood mitigation for need to respect the flood Seaspray. mitagation arrangements for Seaspray. Kilman Roseda Wellingt 22/5/4 Latrobe River The Lake Wellington Converted to become part CMA to investigate possibilities y Park le on 0 Improvement Trust and Rivers Authority of the RIT on 14/6/50. to rate beneficiaries on a user the Thompson River operated the pump, A special (higher) rate pays system. A local management Improvement Trust, the and managed the was applied to the area group will need to be Mid-Gippsland River assets in the area. by the RIT as a result established for this purpose. Management Board, Involvement of the of higher running / Gippsland Water, and LWRA was funded by a maintenance costs then the Lake special rate on compared with other Wellington Rivers landholders in the parts of the Latrobe RIT Authority. Kilmany area. The district. WGCMA has to date continued the involvement of the LWRA.

* 2226 ha in Wellington Shire, and 202 ha in South Gippsland Shire

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 68

Source Table (Table C1): ‘Rural Drainage in Victoria - Scoping study’, Department of Natural Resources and Environment 1996., A discussion paper by Stuart Ferrier on drainage areas in South Gippsland CMA records Correspondence with landholders

Current Drainage Areas

Black Swamp

The Black Swamp Drainage Area is protected by tidal inundation by a sea wall about 1.3 kilometres in length. The original sea wall was built in 1923, but was not high enough and was washed away. After being repaired, the 1934 floods broke a 100 metre wide hole in the wall that took about six months to repair.

The committee was originally administered by the Shire, who rated affected landholders depending on property size. Management of the area was taken over by landholders about ten years ago, as the landholders felt they were better able to manage the area independently. The Shire may have also been keen to pass management over to landholders.

A meeting was held between the majority of the Black Swamp landholders, Wayne Gilmour (West Gippsland CMA), Keith Simcock (South Gippsland Shire), and Geoff Steendam (Sinclair Knight Merz). All landholders present were happy with their own self management of the area. If government involvement included some form of government funding then they would probably be in favor of some form of government management. Issues raised in the area include an application for NHT funds by a group of shark fishermen to re-claim the tidal zone for the sea, and a constriction in the section of main drain to the south-west of Black Swamp road.

Trafalgar Meadows

The Trafalgar Meadows drainage area is located on the Moe Drain. The most pressing issue identified for this area is the state of the Moe Drain. Erosion of the bed and banks has threatened the levee running along each side of the drain. It has also threatened some sections of the road that runs alongside the drain. A study to be undertaken in the near future by the WGCMA and the Baw Baw Shire will look in detail at problems and possible solutions for the Moe Drain.

The Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Trust acts as an advisory committee to the Baw Baw Shire about works required in the area. The Baw Baw Shire rates landholders that are within the drainage area, with most of the funds spent on cleaning lateral drains. About $20,000 is raised annually.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 69

Waratah

This area is managed entirely by individual property owners. No government funding has ever been given. The seawall breached in two places during 1994 due to its exposure to wave action as well as the impact of burrowing foxes and wombats.

The drainage area has two outlets. Water from the section of farmland near Waratah Bay flows out the pipe during times when the outlet of the pipe is not blocked with sand. All other water flows east down the main drain to the floodgate connected to Shallow Inlet.

Yanakie (Red Swamp)

An active committee of landholders maintain both the main drain and the contour drain in the Yanakie Drainage Area. There has been no local government involvement since the landholders took over management from the Shire about ten or twelve years ago. The drainage area was created by the Soldier Settlement Commission when it cleared and subdivided land at Yanakie for farms.

Regular spraying of weeds is performed by the committee, and occasionally a dragline is brought in to clean out the main drains. The low land near the main drain consists of peat soils, so during non-flood times, water is held in the main drain to maintain the groundwater level.

Corner Inlet

The Corner Inlet Drainage Scheme is managed by the South Gippsland Shire. The ‘Corner Inlet Drainage Area Advisory Committee’ reports to the Shire, and comprises of five landholders along the length of the drainage area. The Shire rates landholders in the drainage area depending on the area of land protected by the sea wall.

Seawalls along the Corner Inlet Drainage Area are sometimes built on Crown land, and sometimes on freehold land. This is seen as a potential problem, as in one instance a landholder grazed his stock on the mangroves during a drought period since his freehold title did not end at the seawall.

Hedley (Nine Mile Creek)

The Nine Mile Creek drain was dug in 1935. Alberton Shire and the Alberton River Improvement Trust managed the area. There has not been any active local management committee in the drainage area, at least in recent years.

Flooding is quite common in the low lying areas. One landholder hopes to widen the Gullet Drain through his property and the adjoining Crown Land. As there are no properties downstream of his, the works would not affect West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 70

any other landholders. This is discussed in the main drainage strategy document under Section 7.5.

Sandy Point

The sea wall and the various drains were built and are maintained by the individual landholders. There is no management group, and there has been minimal Shire input in the past.

The sea wall is made of quite sandy material. As indicated in many other drainage areas with sea walls, wombat holes and fox holes in the sea walls are threatening the sea walls in some places in the Sandy Point Drainage Area. The middle of the sea wall forms the title boundary for the properties (this is not the case in most other drainage areas).

Shady Creek

The Shady Creek drainage area is located south of Welshpool. The original work done in this drainage area consisted of building up the banks of the natural drainage course to confine flood flows to the channel.

This drainage area has required no ongoing management since its construction. The Shire has had only small involvement in some maintenance works over recent years.

Pound Creek

The boundary of this area could not be determined, although the area was probably the area of land protected by the sea wall south of the Inverloch- Venus Bay road, and west of Spark’s road.

Landholders currently maintain their own section of sea wall, and the floodgates in the sea wall. All seawalls are believed to have been built on freehold land.

Abolished and Inactive Drainage Areas

Grip

This small drainage area borders the Corner Inlet Drainage Area. There has been no maintenance and no need for maintenance since the construction of the drain in the 1960’s to concentrate flood flows.

Latrobe River (drainage area)

Abolished on 14/6/1950. Work done in this drainage area was only performed on the Latrobe River.

Latrobe (formerly in the Rosedale Shire)

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 71

Abolished on 14/6/1950. Work done in this drainage area was only performed on the Latrobe River.

Latrobe (formerly in the Morwell Shire)

Abolished on 14/6/1950. Work done in this drainage area was only performed on the Latrobe River.

Nilma

The Nilma Drainage Trust began in 1961 through the Warragul Shire. Landholders affected paid an annual levy depending on the area of land affected by flooding. The trust cleaned and widened what is now known as Settler’s Creek. The Nilma Drainage Trust became dormant/extinct about eight or ten years ago. The Settler’s Creek Awareness Group (of which Wally Brown is the chairman) takes over some of the functions of the trust, but acts to revegetate stream banks rather than use excavators to ‘clean’ the creek.

Landholders in the area generally don’t think there is a need for cleaning of the drain in the future. Occasional flooding is accepted in the area, and it is acknowledged that quicker removal of floodwater from the Nilma region can cause more intense flooding downstream.

Upper Latrobe

Work done in this drainage area was only performed on the Latrobe River.

Middle and Lower Tarwin

Middle and Lower Tarwin Drainage Area abolished in 1950. The various levees and sea walls that exist in the area were managed by the Tarwin Bass Waterways Authority before the West Gippsland CMA came into existence, and are documented in the Floodplain Strategy (Sinclair Knight Merz, 1999b).

Heart Morass

The Heart Morass Drainage area was abolished in 1950. Details of levees that exist in the Heart Morass region are given in the Floodplain Strategy. (Sinclair Knight Merz, 1999b).

Holey Plains

Discussions with landholders revealed that the Holey Plains Drainage Area was not known to them. This area may have been concerned with Blind Joe’s creek. The Holey Plains Drainage Area is no longer of relevance as a Drainage Area.

Seaspray West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 72

No details about the Seaspray Drainage Area have been found. This area is no longer of relevance as a Drainage Area.

Kilmany Park

The Kilmany Park Drainage Area was abolished in 1950. Management of the area has continued however, as an electric pump is operated (currently by the West Gippsland CMA) to remove water from the Kilmany main drain on the west of the Kilmany bank, and deposit the water on the east of the Kilmany bank. The pump works in conjunction with a set of floodgates. Future management and funding for the operation of the pump is an issue that needs to be resolved.

There is no management group in the area. Management of the area was previously performed by the Lake Wellington Rivers Authority.

The Fulham Prison releases stormwater into the system in some storm events, and has caused flooding of some nearby landholders.

Modified Rivers/Creeks

Moe Drain/River

The Moe River Drain is a large drain, which drains a former swamp. The majority of the drain is located within the Trafalgar Meadows Drainage Area. Erosion of the banks of the drain is a major problem, as the banks are built up higher than the surrounding land level. Flooding of the surrounding land would result if the banks were breached. Roads passing along the side of the drain are also threatened as a result of the erosion, and have been damaged in the past.

Fish Creek

The Fish Creek Drain drains a former swamp. The drain has reasonably stable banks, but needs occasional de-silting. Drain cleaning works are currently performed by landholders. There are three access crossings of the Fish Creek Drain that have been maintained in the past by the Tarwin Bass Waterways Authority.

Blind Joe Creek Drain

Blind Joe Creek Drain flows parallel with the Latrobe River. The drain is approximately sixteen kilometres in length, beginning west of Rosedale. Blind Joe Creek Drain passes through the Holey Plains area. The Holey Plains drainage area may have had a role in constructing Blind Joe Creek drain.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 73

Purvis Drain

The Purvis Drain is approximately ten kilometres long, is located to the north of the Latrobe River and flows parallel with the River. Six large floodgates are located at the point where it enters the Latrobe River. The drain is reported to be in need of de-silting, as landholders in the area are being affected by poor drainage due to the condition of the drain.

Four Mile Creek Drain

This drain is about three kilometres long, and has a single floodgate at the entry point to the Latrobe River. The drain runs parallel with the Latrobe River, on the north side of the River.

Sheepwash Creek Drain

The Sheepwash Creek Drain flows to the south of the Latrobe River, parallel with the River. The drain is about ten kilometres long, and takes flows from the Loy Yang Creek. A set of six floodgates exist near the entry point of this drain with the Latrobe River.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 74

Appendix D - Key Stakeholders

Apart from West Gippsland CMA itself and the general public, key stakeholders identified to date are as follows:

CMA MANAGEMENT GROUPS

 Tarwin Bass  Corner Inlet  LaTrobe  Avon / / Thompson  Wellington Salinity Group

MUNICIPALITIES

 Bass Coast  South Gippsland  LaTrobe  Baw Baw  Wellington

Two further municipalities - Delatite and East Gippsland - have small portions within the CMA area and have been consulted out of courtesy.

GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS

 Gippsland Coastal Board  Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) - West Gippsland  NRE - Floodplain Management Unit - Box Hill  VICROADS  V-LINE  EPA  SES  Bureau of Meteorology

RURAL WATER AUTHORITY

 Southern Rural Water

URBAN WATER AUTHORITIES

 Gippsland Water  South Gippsland Water  Westernport Water

MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS

 Power  Dairy - Bonlac and Murray Goulburn  Paper

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 75

 Forestry

OTHER INTEREST GROUPS

 Victorian Farmers Federation - Gippsland Field Officer  UDV - Sally Reid  Landcare Groups (in excess of 60)  LaTrobe Field Naturalists  Field and Game Groups  Environmental Groups  Fishing Groups  Gippsland Lakes

Roles and Responsibilities

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (CMA)  Powers under Part 10 of the Water Act to construct and maintain drainage systems with limited liability  Waterway management function  Formulation and implementation of a regional drainage management strategy for the geographic area under the jurisdiction of the CMA  Formulation and implementation of a Floodplain management and Waterway Management strategies for the geographic area under the jurisdiction of the CMA  Coordination and possibly management role for surface drainage within the CMA area  Have rating powers to provide, operate and maintain drainage systems

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE)  Environmental management  Wetland (including lake) management  Flora / fauna (bio diversity) management  Lake Management  Provision of Catchment and Agricultural Extension Services  Managing the Victorian component of the Murray Darling Basin Salinity and Drainage strategy (including salt export, interception and disposal  Ascertaining, monitoring and managing the downstream impacts of drainage from within Victoria.  Productive use of lands  Strong community links through research, extension and advisory services (particularly related to the facilitation of community drainage works and funds as well as grants associated with onfarm planning and works community drainage officers)  Facilitate the process to seek and secure commonwealth Natural Heritage Trust and State Government funding  Facilitate the provision of State Government approval of CMA Strategic Plans and Business Plan

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 76

Department of Planning  Determines whether a full Environment Effect Study and process is required  Determines what plans and strategies are to be complied with under the State Planning and Environment Act

Municipalities (Major input from 5 shires)  Planning controls  Past history of drain scheme implementation, funding and management  Have the ability and power to rate beneficiaries of surface drainage under their control. Liability is not limited by the legislation. Currently there are at least two drainage schemes which are rated by municipalities  Rating system available

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)  Determining conditions under which discharge can occur to and from drains and the issuing of licences (this has not occurred on a broad scale but could in the future)  Monitoring for licence compliance  Water Quality Issues with Outfalls

Community  Consultation, planning, implementation and management of surface drains  Meeting part of the cost of implementing the drainage systems and then meeting the full cost of operating, maintaining and replacing these drains.

Parks Victoria  Management of State Forests and Public Lands

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV)  Preserving and enhancing the effect on Aboriginal heritage sites and in the particular as these sites relate to aboriginal issues  Assessment of new works and if necessary directing the modification new works to preserve the heritage values in the area.

Gippsland Coastal Board  Coordinate and Manage the coastal areas of South Gippsland

Southern Rural Water (SRW)  Irrigation Supplier  Powers under the Water Act to construct, operate maintain and manage water supply and drainage systems within and outside the irrigation Districts. Liability is however limited within the Irrigation Districts.  Irrigation water supplier  Provider of surface drainage services within the Irrigation Districts  Have rating powers to provide, operate and maintain drainage systems  Irrigation Drainage Management and lead agency for irrigation drainage West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 77

 Strong links with customer base and the rural community (Water Services Committee’s)  May be responsible for the quality of the water quality outfalling from drains under their control (ownership)

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (DAFF)  Administration of MD2001 component of the Natural Heritage Trust funding  Referral of projects to Environment Australia for environmental clearance

Department of Environment Australia (EA)  Ensures that new works comply with the relevant Federal Environmental Protection and planning Acts where federal funding is involved  Administer parts of the Natural Heritage Trust funding program (eg Bush Care)

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 78

Appendix E - Minutes of Workshop held between the WGCMA and Local Government

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 79

Appendix F - Urban Drainage Outfalls

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 80