Murray Darling Basin Plan and Constraints Management Strategy

Submission to Senate Select Committee

Submitter Margaret Abbey Chief Executive Officer

On behalf of

1.0 Introduction

Murrindindi Shire is situated at the top end of the catchment and Council has been an active stakeholder in the development of the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) Plan and Constraints Management Strategy, including representation on the Mid-Goulburn MDBA Technical Advisory Committee and the MDBA Community Leaders Advisory Group as well as the Floodplain Landowners Association Upper Goulburn Catchment.

The is a significant feature of the shire. Entering from Eildon the river flows in a westerly direction through a broad, agricultural valley bordered by foothills towards Seymour leaving the shire at Kerrisdale. Water in this stretch of the river comes from releases from Eildon Dam and inflows from several unregulated tributaries. The , , Spring Creek, Home Creek, (and , which joins the Yea) and King Parrot Creek all enter this stretch of Goulburn River. These tributaries are unregulated and rise and fall rapidly in response to rain.

The Goulburn River is key to Murrindindi Shire’s businesses including farming, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and caravan parks. Council is concerned for the environment, the people who work and live along the river and the assets that may be affected. The benefit from environmental flows is recognised, however they must be weighed against increased risk to the community and property.

Whilst Council is supportive of the key principle of the Murray Darling Basin Plan (plan), to provide a coordinated approach to water use across the Basin's four States and the ACT, our concerns primarily relate to proposed constraint measures that are being considered for the Goulburn area in the Constraints Management Strategy (strategy). The provided details, on which Council is commenting, are currently limited. The recent strategy consultation documentation identified that the business case, which is currently not due to be developed until November 2015, will improve the accuracy of the predictive modelling, identify the impact of the tributaries, develop the plan for the release of the environmental flows as currently the source is only identified as Eildon Dam and/or Goulburn Weir, and decide on the volume of overbank flows. In light of these current uncertainties Council is required to consider the potential highest risk to our community and respond to that.

A range of flow options are currently under consideration in relation to the ‘top up’ required to be added to deliver the required downstream flows of 25-40,000Ml/d at Shepparton, of 12,500, 15,500 and 20,000Ml/d, which potentially might be fully sourced from Eildon Dam as the contribution from Goulburn Weir is unknown. While it is accepted that the maximum in channel capacity (at the Molesworth pinch point) is 9,500 Ml/d, local experience and evidence has highlighted that the proposed environmental flow of 12,000 Ml/d impacts the Molesworth region and 15,000Ml/d elsewhere in the subreach 20,000Ml/day, more than double the channel capacity, results in major flooding and damage across the reach and is considered to be unacceptable and significantly higher than that currently indicated in the modelling.

Council is also concerned about unintended consequences which may be created by the lack of coordination between the development of strategies impacting in the same area. Specifically the Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy (VFMS) on which Council has recently commented. The VFMS proposes a strategic approach of using existing wetlands to reduce the impact of flooding. However the MDBA plan and strategy are not referenced within the VFMS although the proposals have a potential to impact on each other. In addition the VFMS also states that costs to implement Water Management Schemes will be equally shared but that management, maintenance and auditing costs will be the responsibility of the LGA. With the proposed additional flooding events under the strategy, financial impact on Council could be higher than intended.

Council recognises the strategic objective of the Strategy to manage water for environmental use, however a key principle is that there will be no new risks to entitlement holders. It is our belief that unintended consequences could result in a significant negative impact on Council and on the community in our Shire. These consequences have not yet been vigorously assessed and further investigation is required before the strategy is endorsed. Council’s concerns detailed in this submission relate to the following items;

• Integrity of the data and modelling used to forecast impacts, including the impacts of the tributaries • Accountability for the risk of flooding beyond anticipated levels. • Unrecognised costs and impacts on landowners. • Managing health and safety. • Impact on the tourism industry. • Cost impact on Council.

2.0 Integrity of data

Council is concerned that there is insufficient data to properly inform the Authority and Australian Government prior to decision making. Specifically the current flood modelling does not reflect local experience of the impacts. This has been recognised in the recent Goulburn River Reach Report July 2015 (GRRR) and it was confirmed at recent community consultation meetings that further models were being developed. The GRRR states

“limited data reduce the accuracy of the hydraulic models especially in the mid- Goulburn just down from Eildon and the lower Goulburn downstream of Loch Garry)” (Page 30).

In addition Council does not believe the Strategy takes into account the potential impacts of the many tributaries. This is also substantiated in the

GRRR “From MDBA consultation 2013, there is some concern that we do not yet have

sufficient accuracy in the stream gauge network to confidently predict how tributaries will behave under different weather scenarios.” (Page 37).

Flows in the Acheron River are augmented by the and the Steavenson Rivers. The unregulated nature of these rivers and their capacity to rise rapidly due to local precipitation compounds the impact of potential outcomes in the Goulburn River and the difficulty of accurate modelling.

Currently not all of the catchment between Eildon and Trawool is gauged, half of the Yea/ Murrindindi catchment is not gauged and a large percentage of the King Parrot Creek is not gauged. The unregulated tributaries between Eildon and Seymour include the Rubicon River, Acheron River, Spring Creek, Home Creek, Yea and Murrindindi River, King Parrot Creek, , Whiteheads Creek and Sunday Creek. This lack of a necessary gauging network particularly on the tributaries does not allow accurate modelling or informed decisions to be made on Eildon releases to ensure flows are safely managed and contained to the targeted levels.

3.0 Risk of flooding beyond anticipated levels

Given the above concerns on the validity of the modelling information, Council considers there is high risk that flooding may be greater than anticipated. The release of water from Eildon has a significant travel time, for example 24hrs to reach Molesworth. During this time there is also potential for unpredicted rain events to add to the flows. Climate change is likely to lead to more intense patterns of rainfall leading to more destructive storms which can significantly influence the severity of flood flows. The data, to date, do not appear to have considered the changes to rainfall patterns which are being dramatically disrupted due to warming temperatures as highlighted with the VFMS. The significant risk of flooding being greater than expected may cause extensive damage to property.

For Council the question that has not been addressed is, if the flow footprints are larger than expected, and for which the compensation has been paid, how will people be protected and where does the increased financial liability lie?. There is concern that the risk and liability will be shifted to affected individuals or businesses and the local Council through “one off” payments and forcibly acquired easements. The potential impacts, like the flows and the subsequent damage caused, cannot be accurately predicted.

4.0 Unrecognised Cost Impacts on Landowners and Businesses

There are significant impacts on a farming business created by flooding that are not acknowledged within the report. These impacts could render some farming operations unviable as extended flooding results in loss of food, fibre and economic benefits.

Many farms rely almost totally on the river flats to provide pasture and grazing land for stock. Flooding of the river flats in many cases will require agistment, transportation and purchased feed for stock at significant cost. Where stock can be moved to higher ground the increased and intensified stocking rate can be detrimental to the remainder of the property requiring significant rehabilitation costs.

Restricted access to river flats making urgent movement of cattle difficult and dangerous and stressful to stock particularly during the breeding period. The rapidly rising flood waters also present significant dangers for those who have to manage stock movements.

The proposed period and timing of flooding has the potential for loss of silage and hay production and loss and damage to pasture during the prime fattening period of August to November. The proposed flood event timing and length is still unclear with the GRRR talking of “days to weeks” with flows occurring between June and November with the preferred period August to November.

Prolonged inundation of pasture and crops will cause significant damage requiring expensive and prolonged renovation. Advice from local landowners indicates that a flood event that lasts for a week or more can result in damage to pasture that can take two to three years to recover and farmers are required to manage the subsequent weed infestation, biosecurity issues and nutrient leaching in the following years. The proposed additional events could result in up to six flood events in the ten year period, potentially an event every other year.

Also of significant concern to landholders are fence repair or replacement, removing debris, trough maintenance, relocation of pumps and other plant and machinery, increased drainage and track maintenance and restriction of application or loss of applied fertilisers. This can represent considerable costs and it is unlikely that insurance cover would be available for the damage or loss resulting from deliberately induced flood events.

This is supported by the Revised Draft of the Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy (VFMS) which states under 10.3 Average annual damage

“Floods are generally regarded as causing three types of damage: • Direct tangible damages include damage to structure and contents of buildings, agricultural enterprises and regional infrastructure. • Indirect tangible damages arise from disruptions to community wellbeing, economic activities and social activities. They include costs of emergency response, clean up and community support as well as disruption to transport, commerce and employment. • Intangible damages cannot be quantified in monetary terms, despite their significance. They include trauma, stress, loss of cultural heritage, biodiversity and threatened habitats.”

5.0 Managing the Health and Safety of the Community

Council is concerned for the safety of the community and visitors to the area. Flooding can significantly increase the risk to the safety of persons working and living on areas that are inundated, particularly if they are required to relocate stock or plant and equipment. The VFMS 10.2 states

“Floods put people who live, work or travel on the floodplain at risk of social disruption, financial loss, disease, injury or possible death.”

There is currently no acknowledgement of the increased risk to safety of the community and visitors that increased flood events will incur. This risk may currently be considered of low probability but the impact could be significant and questions Council would still like to see answered include;

• How will the flood warnings be given, particularly for people, residents or visitors, down river who would not be expecting the flooding or in contact through normal communication methods? • Who will be taking responsibility and who will hold liability if someone is injured or killed through a forced flood event?

One of the unintended consequences that should be recognised within the strategy is the potential impact on power generation at Eildon. Due to the long lead time to bring on additional coal generated power, should there be an unexpected demand hydro power may be called on due to its capacity to immediately increase generation. Eildon Dam can currently release up to 17,000Ml/d for this purpose but this may be constrained in the future following or soon after an environmental flood release.

6.0 Impact on the Tourism and Recreation Industry

The proposal in the Strategy is to potentially increase flood events by up to 50% over a ten year period, i.e. from an average four events to a potential six. Dependent on the total number and extent of the flooding events, this could have a direct and indirect impact on tourism. As a direct impact this could have an effect on the attractiveness of the area, as the Goulburn River is a significant attractor for fishers, kayakers, rafters, picnickers and campers. Indirectly the increased likelihood of flood events in the area has the potential to deter visitors regardless of whether or not they would actually be impacted. The damage resulting from flood events may also reduce the aesthetic appeal of the area.

Many tourist and recreation related local businesses are situated along/adjacent to the river including trout farms, caravan parks, outdoor education facilities/camps, B and B’s and farm gate sales outlets. These facilities would be negatively impacted by increased flood events.

Consideration also needs to be given to ensure the Strategy does not conflict with other initiatives in the area. For example, there has been significant investment in recent years to boost tourism and attractiveness of the region and this includes the recently completed Great Victorian Rail Trail which is a unique trail stretching 134 kilometres from just outside the Tallarook Railway Station to as far east as Mansfield township.

7.0 Cost Impact on Council

The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA) on behalf of the Victorian Government, was charged with the responsibility of continuing investigations for the Goulburn River Constraints Business Case Development in June 2015. The draft Business Case is to be completed for scrutiny by the Victorian Government by November 2015 allowing only a four month period which has constrained the investigation. Input from Council to identify possible affected assets has been limited to a two hour meeting with Council officers, which identified the assets that may be affected but did not allow any detailed discussion.

The flood footprints used in this assessment were preliminary and did not provide sufficient information to fully assess the number or extent of impact on Council’s assets. The extent of the impact on Council’s assets, and subsequently on the community, is also dependent on

the length of time these assets are subject to inundation and this is not clear within the current documentation available. Regular flooding of Councils infrastructure will impose significant additional cost. Additional infrastructure will be required such as culverts and flood levees. This additional infrastructure will need to be regularly maintained and renewed and will create an ongoing additional cost to Council even if initially funded as a method of mitigation.

The VFMS sets the proposed direction for future floodplain management in and clearly outlines in Section 17 that the management arrangements for future flood mitigation, which includes the construction, restoration and ongoing maintenance of necessary infrastructure, will, at the least partially, reside with Local Government.

Flood events also require Council to provide additional services which include:

• Provide flood warning signage and flood depth indicators • Provide additional culverts and pre cleaning. Clear and clean silted up roads • Repair breakup of road surfaces • Repair erosion of gravel road surfaces • Clear silting of pathways • Repair damage to pathways • Remove built up debris • Repair damaged buildings • Daily monitoring of bridges for log and debris build up • Repair damage to bridges and culverts • Monitor and repair levees.

Preliminary estimates prepared by Council officers, available for inspection if required, with the limited data available indicate that these costs could exceed $1.2m per event. Mitigation works, such as raising road and bridge levels, will reduce some of the costs identified above but not all.

Long term damage to Council’s infrastructure may not be immediately evident. Inundation of roads, in particular pavement and sub base, results in accelerated deterioration and in turn the need for premature renewal. This shortens the useful life and increases whole of life costing. Road use may need to be restricted or load limited for some time after inundation to limit ongoing damage.

Council is also concerned of the effect on septic tanks and commercial waste water systems. Whilst most tanks and systems should not be structurally damaged by flooding as they are below ground, flooding of the septic systems may wash out solids from the tank causing blockages or system damage. Sewage contains harmful bacteria, viruses and parasites and this has the potential to impact on local water ways, public health and economic viability. There are several businesses on the Goulburn River that could be significantly affected, all of which have commercial waste water systems in place.

The imposition of easements over farming properties has the potential to devalue land considered amongst the most valuable grazing and farming land in the shire. The values vary along the river frontage but there is river frontage land in Ghin Ghin currently valued at $28,292 per hectare and in Thornton at $23,545 per hectare. The result of such devaluation would be reduced rate income to Council from affected properties creating larger rate burdens on other landowners. In addition it could reduce the attraction of the Shire as a place to live and work as well as visit, significantly impacting on the Council’s already constrained ability to grow and develop.

8.0 Summary

Council submits that the information and data on which the Basin Plan and the Constraints Management Strategy (CMS) has been developed is incomplete and inaccurate. Therefore the assessment of the impacts is unsubstantiated. To date the mapping of impacts has been based on 'desk top' analysis. Although the business case is under development due in November 2015 this does not resolve the issue that accurate data from the tributaries is not sufficiently available. Real life data inputs if and when provided, will assist in part but are limited. The additional impacts of the Rubicon, Acheron and Yea/Murrindindi Rivers which provide 50% of the flow to the Goulburn River have not been accounted for. High flows in the Goulburn River restrict the flow from the tributaries resulting in ”backing up” and inundation( often prolonged) of properties extending significant distances along the tributaries. Many of the tributaries have headwaters in steep country where water can be collected in very short periods of time often from intense, isolated and unpredictable rain events. These flows can then significantly add flow to the Goulburn River.

The land value on some areas along the Goulburn River is also significantly higher, almost double that of the estimated value of $12,500 -$16,000 per hectare used to calculate compensation levels in the report and therefore could be significantly underestimating these costs. The report also ignores the non-direct costs to Council such as loss of rate revenue and tourism income as well as the ongoing additional operating and maintenance costs of new flood infrastructure, which the VFMS may aggravate further. The result of this is that the current $200 million allowed for mitigation is likely to be a significant underestimate. With these unknowns, which Council is not assured the Business Case will mitigate, the transfer of risk to our community and to Council of having to accommodate the additional costs and impacts is too high.