Submission to Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Inquiry into Rural Drainage within Victoria
February 2013
This page left blank.
xxxxxxxxxxx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction………………………………………………. 4 2. Background………………………………………………… 4 3. Legislation…………….…………………………………… 5 4. Status of Rural Drainage in Victoria………………………. 7 5. Existing Rural Drainage Scheme Management Arrangements 9 and Types…………………………………………………. 6. Key Issues………………………………………………... 9 7. Environmental issues associated with Rural Drainage…….. 10 8. Future Arrangements for the Management of Rural Drainage 12 in Victoria…………………………………………………. 9. Achieving clarity with Strategies and Plans………………... 14
1. Introduction This is a submission by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) to the Victorian Parliament’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee’s Inquiry into Rural Drainage within Victoria. This submission has been prepared by DSE in consultation with the Department of Planning and Community Development, however does not represent a policy position of Government.
2. Background Altering water flows across landscapes to improve the liveability of towns and to enhance the productivity of land has been practiced for over 150 years. However, while communities serviced by drains benefit, costs may be transferred downstream where the drainage water is discharged. Costs may include waterlogging and flooding, damage to public infrastructure and damage to the environment with erosion of waterways and an influx of nutrients or salinity causing water quality to deteriorated. In addition, drainage schemes can affect environmentally valuable wetlands. Drainage removes water from one location to another – usually onto neighbouring property, or onto a public road, a public culvert, or a public waterway. Individuals often need to collectively invest in a drainage network to provide drainage services efficiently and effectively. It requires collaboration, coordination and joint investment. Responsibility for providing drainage services in Victoria are based on the principle that those that gain a benefit from drainage should pay for the service. Based on this principle the long standing responsibilities for drainage for Victoria are: • local government have the primary responsibility for operating and maintaining, drainage systems servicing towns and their road network • Melbourne Water is responsible for the arterial drain network in Melbourne with local government responsible for all catchments with and area of less than 60 Ha • Water corporations with irrigation responsibilities are responsible for providing drainage services to their irrigation customers. • Land holders are responsible for providing drainage within their property (land holders may group together to develop community drainage schemes) • State Government is responsible for legislation to regulate the provision of drainage services including the offsite impacts of drainage on third parties and the environment. The costs of providing general drainage services are met through the rating base. Groups receiving higher levels of service may pay additional drainage rates. For example, irrigators pay drainage rates to their water corporations calculated on a fee for service basis and Melbournians fund Melbourne Waters drainage costs through a specific charge on their water bills. Unlike irrigation and urban drainage, rural drainage is typically carried out on an ad-hoc basis with the focus increasing in wet years. As witnessed over the recent 12 years of drought, little effort was placed on maintaining rural drainage as the need for the service was significantly reduced. For the purposes of this document, the definition of rural drainage is generally considered to exclude drainage of irrigated areas (designed to remove rainfall runoff), and drainage of urban areas (designed to remove rainfall runoff) which is considered to be adequately supported and managed through Rural Water Corporations (Water Act), Local Government (Local Government Act) and the Planning & Environment Act 1987 (Vic.) legislation. There are some exceptions to the rule worth noting, where in some cases rural drainage systems do not
Page 4
cover the whole of the catchment upstream of their point of outfall or outfall through or to natural drainage lines that pass through urban areas. Small drains at the farm scale accumulate water and discharge to larger community drains (often including road-side table drains), and then outfall to waterways, lakes, wetlands and estuaries. DSE estimates that there are over 30,000 km of rural drains across Victoria (in addition to that located within irrigation areas or towns). The majority of drains are located on private land. There is estimated to be between 130 and 150 drainage systems spread across Victoria which service over 1 million hectares of predominantly agricultural land. Whilst drains can improve agricultural productivity in a localised area, they can also present a risk to nearby assets such as public roads, waterways and wetlands. Rural drainage systems may have negative impacts on environmental assets within the catchment, in the waterway of the drain or in the receiving waterway. Drainage has impacted on the State’s wetlands, including significant areas of Victoria’s freshwater marshes and meadows. The effluent carried by drains can also be high in salt, nutrients, sediment and agricultural and commercial chemicals, all of which can have a detrimental impact on receiving waters such as lakes, rivers and estuaries. In addition, in some cases larger waterways and channels that receive drainage water have eroded, presenting a risk, rather than protection, to public assets such as bridges, roads and power lines. Historically, rural drainage has been undertaken at a variety of scales, from the individual landholder up to large drainage schemes involving thousands of hectares of land. For example, in the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (CMA) area in the west of the State, there are 23 gazetted (i.e. formal) drainage areas, and a further 22 private or informal schemes, together draining approximately 200,000 ha of land. In the past, a number of drainage schemes were funded by a combination of private and public contributions, where Government subsidies matched landowner contributions to fund capital works, after which landowners met the ongoing maintenance costs. As a result of the repeal of the Drainage Areas Act 1958 (Vic.) in 1992, most drainage works are now operated under the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic.) and the Water Act 1989 (Vic.). Drainage schemes were typically managed by local government, through drainage Trusts or some being established as River Improvement Trusts or similar entities. When Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) were established in 1997, the Water Act (Part 10) enabled (but did not require) CMAs to manage rural drainage as successor bodies particularly for some schemes. CMAs now manage about 7 or 8 schemes with the remainder vested with local government. At the time, the CMAs also had the power to raise a tariff to fund work such as regional planning or ability to locally rate for drainage services. Some CMAs prepared regional drainage strategies in the late 1990s, with 6 of the 10 CMAs having completed strategies in place. These strategies found that drainage infrastructure was in poor condition, that public assets such as roads were threatened by erosion particularly in larger modified waterways, and that drainage was found to be harming environmental values in some areas. Historic urban, irrigation and rural drains were also often designed without due regard to their downstream impacts.
3. Legislation The repeal of the Drainage Areas Act in 1992 saw the responsibility for any gazetted Drainage area resting with the relevant Local Government under the Local Government Act 1989, unless responsibility was transferred to some other public organisation under the Water Act, 1989 . The relevant sections of these Acts are described in more detail below.
Page 5
• The Local Government Act 1989 ( Vic.) o Section 86 - Special Committees of Council Allows a council to establish a special committee made up of a combination of councillors, council staff and other persons. This committee does not have the power to declare a rate of charge, this must be done by the Council under s.162; o Section 162 – Service rate and service charge Empowers the Council to declare a service rate, or an annual service charge, for prescribed services. o Section 163 – Special rate and special charge Empowers Council to declare a special rate or charge for the performance of a function which the council considers the person paying the rate is benefiting from. Declared rates or charges may only be applied to situations of defraying expenses or recouping debts. o Section 198 – Sewers and drains vested in the Council This is an important section that states that Councils are responsible for public drains, and drains along roads, unless they have been vested in some other public organisation. Therefore, Councils are the default managers of drains in Victoria. Following are the exact words of the section: . s.198 Sewers and drains vested in the Council (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.
• The Water Act 1989 (Vic) o Section 16 – Liability arising out of flow of water etc. Ascribes liability of a person for damages arising out of unreasonable flows originating from their property. o Section 188 – Designated waterways and designated land or works Empowers an Authority to declare a waterway, land or works as being designated and therefore subject to regulation. o Section 199 – Functions of Authorities Enables, but does not require, a CMA to provide and operate drainage services in its jurisdiction. o Sections 213 – 217 – Water management schemes Empowers the Minister to set up committees, conduct investigations and approve water management schemes for the improved management of waterways. o Section 218 – Drainage Courses Allows for the formal declaration of drainage courses, thus empowering an Authority to direct or undertake works.
Page 6
o Section 244 – Community drainage and salinity schemes Allows registration of a community agreement by which a group of landowners voluntarily establish a community drainage scheme to combat drainage problems in their area o Section 259 – Tariffs Enables a CMA to impose a tariff for drainage services • The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Vic.) o Section 12 – Functions powers and duties of Authorities Specifies the functions of an Authority in respect of the region for which it has been appointed, however does not mention drainage. o Section 19J – Committees established by Authorities Empowers a CMA to establish a committee to which it can delegate any power, function, authority or discretion (i.e. provision of drainage). It can also establish committees in an advisory capacity. Other relevant legislation includes, but is not limited to:- • Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) • Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) • Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) • Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth.) • Planning & Environment Act 1989 (Vic). The State Planning Policy Framework of Victoria’s Planning Provisions requires that local government planning schemes make provisions to assist in the protection and conservation of Ramsar sites and other wetlands, migratory birds, threatened species and native vegetation, including that in wetlands. In local planning schemes, many wetlands have a level of protection from drainage involving earthworks under planning controls. These include schedules to the environmental significance overlay which have a rather limited coverage over wetlands in Victoria and are specifically tailored to meet the requirements of the wetlands covered. A more general provision is that regulating earthworks that that affect the flow of water across a property boundary. These provisions are contained in the schedule to the Farming Zone and Rural Conservation Zone. However, these controls are may not be universally applied in all planning schemes across Victoria and planning schemes should be reviewed. In some local government areas there is no requirement for approval to undertake smaller drainage works on individual farms where water flow across a property boundary is not a factor. CMAs are currently unable to fulfil an all-encompassing role in the management of rural drainage with legislation as it currently stands. An example of an obstacle to this type of management arrangement is the limitations around the abilities of a CMA to raise a tariff to fund drainage management other than for a specific area (a power they have had in the past but do not currently possess). Both Councils and CMAs can raise specific tariffs from beneficiaries of drainage programs, the former under s.163 of the Local Government Act, and the latter under s.259 of the Water Act. In practice, CMAs have found it difficult to establish such a drainage tariff (we believe that there are no such tariffs established in Victoria at present), whereas Councils have established several rated schemes.
4. Status of Rural Drainage in Victoria As part of preparing a submission, DSE undertook a snapshot of the status of rural drainage across Victoria (Submission to Environment and Natural Resources Committee Inquiry into
Page 7
Rural Drainage within Victoria – Rural Drainage Status Report DSE 2013). This report is attached for ENRC’s consideration. There are approximately 130-150 rural drainage schemes which are spread across most of Victoria, except for the relatively drier Mallee CMA area, as shown in Attachment 1. Many existing schemes were constructed between 1960 and 1980 and for various reasons there is very little information available on many of these schemes. The attached report into the Status of Rural Drainage in Victoria identified that there are more than 130 schemes throughout the State however condition ratings were only available for 33 at the time of writing, and are as follows; • 4 were classed as good and meeting landowner expectations, • 14 were classed as being in fair condition and providing a level of service less than optimum but still acceptable to stakeholders (life expectancy 20-30 years) – Medium condition, • 15 were classified as having assets which are badly deteriorated but structurally sound, waterway in need of maintenance and the level of service provided being below expectations (life expectancy 0-20 years) – Poor condition.
The report into the Status of Rural Drainage in Victoria also found that CMAs and local government reported concerns about the lack of clarity regarding whether the landholders, the Council or the CMA are responsible for the management of rural drainage, who the assets are owned by, and how and from whom the costs for the establishment and maintenance of drains should be recovered. This confusion is thought to stem from the repeal of the Drainage Areas Act 1958 , changes in State and Local Government and their priorities, various different arrangements for the capital funding of drainage, and the fact that Victoria’s drainage is located on a mixture of private and public land, drainage reserves or other-purpose specified reserves or easements on private land. In addition there would appear to be a reluctance to accept responsibility because of the lack of resources to undertake the services. Drainage works are located on a mixture of public land, drainage or other purpose specified reserves, easements on private land and private land. As a result, in many cases, asset ownership is disputed with landowners who believe that the CMA or local government is responsible for assets that received at least some government funding at some time in the past. DSE is of the opinion that contribution to capital funding of an asset by the State does not necessarily invoke an obligation of maintenance. Throughout most of Victoria there is confusion over which agency should take the lead role and coordinate drainage. Many municipalities do not regard rural drainage (apart from road formation and cross drainage) as being part of their core business or skill base, despite the fact that rural drainage is, by default, vested in them ( Local Government Act 1989 , s198). As indicated in the Rural Drainage Status report, the management of many of the drainage schemes across Victoria is dysfunctional and the condition of the assets in most drainage schemes is unknown. Within many CMAs, waterways have been declared Waterways under Section 188 of the Water Act and as such all works on these waterways (including maintenance works) must be referred to the CMA and subject to environmental referrals. Waterways, particularly in drainage areas, are often excavated channels with little environmental values, however the process of assessing works on waterways licensing or obtaining Commonwealth approval under the EPBC Act is very time consuming and inhibits drain maintenance. A risk based approach is required that will avoid wasting time on low value channels, but will adequately protect high value systems.
Page 8
5. Existing Rural Drainage Scheme Management Arrangements and Types Throughout Victoria there are a variety of institutional forms for providing rural drainage services. Generally they can be defined as:- • Gazetted Drainage Scheme – A drainage system that services several landholders and has been officially declared a gazetted drainage area by the Minister, through legislative mechanisms such as the Water Act 1989 or the Drainage Areas Act 1958 prior to its repeal. Gazetting a drainage area formalises its function, and subjects it to a higher level of regulation, and administrative and legislative requirements, but also gives an authority under the Water Act, 1989 more options for the management and funding of the scheme. • Registered Drainage Scheme – A drainage system that services several landholders and has not been gazetted, but has other formal regulatory mechanisms in place to manage aspects of the scheme, such as setting up committees responsible for decision making, or implementing a special rate or tariff for the service. These may be managed by CMAs or municipalities. • Informal Drainage Network – A drainage network that has been developed, funded and is managed privately by local landholders, and is not formally recognised by any legislation, funding or rating arrangements. • Drainage services provided by local government and CMAs outside of schemes - drainage works permitted through the local planning scheme or through CMA permits
6. Key Issues The collection of information on the status and policy needs of Victoria’s rural drainage, which was conducted to support this submission, has identified the following issues as requiring attention: • Clarification of the respective roles of the CMAs and State and Local Government in ensuring that drainage services are provided commensurate with community needs • Clarity on the community and Government’s role and processes to ensure that the off-site and environmental impacts of rural drainage are appropriately managed. • There is a need for principles for future funding of rural drainage construction and maintenance • In many cases the cost-benefits are not well understood and there is a lack of a willingness to pay or affordability of the service (current landholders are receiving a service but are unwilling to meet the costs of ongoing operations, maintenance and refurbishment) • In some cases the drainage infrastructure is in such poor condition and of a significant scale that it is unlikely that beneficiaries are able to fund initial upgrades (e.g. Moe) • The level of management needs to reflect the service required. In many cases it is not necessary to have overly formal management arrangements with landholders being comfortable doing their own maintenance within limits • There is varied opinion on what constitutes a beneficiary • The benefits of drainage is cyclical with greatest benefits usually during wetter years. Therefore there is reduced willingness or focus on maintenance in dry years • There is a perception that drainage will alleviate major flooding • Drainage from urban expansion can increase the flows from the catchment Page 9
• The environmental approvals processes for drainage maintenance are seen as unnecessarily restrictive. There is a need for a clear, risk based, balanced approach to the environmental approval process, which facilitates the construction and maintenance of drains where necessary, while also protecting environmental values.
7. Environmental issues associated with Rural Drainage The environmental issues associated with drainage are relatively well documented in the drainage strategies prepared originally by Catchment Management Authorities and also provided in the submissions. These include: • Drainage of wetlands (further discussed below) • Hydrological impacts – alteration of flow regime of waterways • Erosion potential • Soil and nutrient export • Water quality – pollutant and nutrient loads can increase as a result of drainage discharging to receiving waters. • Potential exposure of acid-sulfate soils (further discussed below) Impacts on wetlands There has been a long history of rural drainage in Victoria, primarily to remove water from land to increase agricultural productivity. This has been responsible for the loss of a significant proportion of Victoria’s wetlands, particularly shallow, freshwater wetlands that fill and dry seasonally. • By 1994, 26% of the total area of natural wetlands (approx. 200,000 ha) had been lost due to drainage since European settlement (Figure 1). • The majority of loss was private land. • Wetland drainage continues, especially in shallow freshwater wetlands on private land.
Page 10
Figure 1: Wetlands lost since European settlement by 1994.
Specific examples of drainage impacts on wetlands are provided below.
Figure 2 – Example of a large wetland system lost due to drainage in South-West Victoria
Page 11
Figure 3 – Example of reduction in wetland extent in Western Victoria
Activation of acid-sulfate soils The potential activation of acid-sulfate soils is an important consideration and historically little known about the issue although very relevant in areas serviced by deep drainage. Acid sulfate soils have been found in numerous coastal and inland settings in Victoria. Left undisturbed by natural events or human activities, potential acid-sulfate soil is generally benign. When disturbed and oxygenated, acid-sulfate soil can release large quantities of sulfuric acid, resulting in extreme acidities unless buffered by chemical reaction (generally with carbonate minerals). Where disturbed and hydraulically connected to the surrounding environment, off- site impacts can occur as acidic leachates move from the zone of disturbed acid-sulfate soil, e.g. into non- acid-sulfate soil, waterways, water-bodies, ground water. The results can be a significant loss in wetland ecosystems, reduction in vegetation and uninhabitable waterways. Release of the Victorian Coastal Acid Sulfate Soil Management Strategy by DSE (DSE, 2009) has spear headed the management of acid-sulfate soil in rural and urban environments. This document summarises roles and responsibilities for the management of acid-sulfate soil by different government agencies and sectors of the general public. It is focused on avoiding disturbing acid-sulfate soil.
8. Future Arrangements for the Management of Rural Drainage in Victoria
Principles and Responsibilities for Managing Rural Drainage Future management of rural drainage across Victoria should be based on the following principles. • state government is responsible for: o the legislation and state-wide policies required to enable the provision of rural drainage services o governance of government entities providing drainage services o investment where state benefits exceed costs • catchment management authorities are responsible for: Page 12
o regulating the environmental impacts of schemes on waterways and flooding with DSE o identifying rural drainage needs and priorities within their regional catchment management strategies o providing rural drainage services where drainage fees and charges are collected (particularly where the scheme services land holders in more than one municipality) and where the management responsibility is vested in the CMA. • the EPA is responsible for regulating regulate water quality impacts • regulation will be low cost and proportionate to the risks being managed • local government is responsible for: o facilitating and supporting local rural drainage schemes consistent with local priorities o funding drainage works consistent with community priorities and willingness to pay o having regard to rural drainage issues when undertaking their planning functions • entities providing rural drainage services are responsible for: o determining service standards and operating standards with customers consistent with willingness to pay o dispute resolution o operating, maintaining and refurbishing the infrastructure required to provide the agreed service standards o ensuring the scheme complies with regulatory requirements o reporting to their customers on the performance of the scheme • customers are responsible for meeting their share of the costs of operating the schemes and complying with the operating standards of the scheme. Individuals are responsible for meeting their licence or permit conditions that ensure third parties and environmental impacts are minimised. This may occur within or outside of a scheme.
Applying the Principles
Operation of existing schemes The present general management arrangements are really a mixed model, with responsibility for rural drainage shared between Councils and CMAs. The present arrangements are adequate and appropriate. However, the problem with the present legislative and administrative arrangements is not that they are inadequate or inappropriate, but that there is confusion about their application. Increasing clarity rather than wholesale change to rural drainage legislation and policy is required. Where CMAs are the lead agency for managing a scheme there is a need to ensure costs of providing the service can be covered. Both CMAs and local government can raise a tariff for rural drainage. For administrative efficiency it is suggested that, in general, tariffs be collected by local government and transferred to CMAs where they are the lead agency for a scheme.
Existing Drainage Schemes with Legacy Issues. Historical funding legacy . The Rural Drainage Status Report identified a handful of situations where government still funds maintenance of rural drainage works and maintenance. The Corangamite CMA inherited responsibility for the Lough Calvert and Woady Yallock drainage schemes from their predecessor River Improvement Trust. A state government grant of a few hundred thousand dollars each year is provided to the CCMA to maintain those systems.
Page 13
There are also suggestions that some local governments continue to maintain a few drainage areas from their general rate base. Such arrangements are inequitable (why doesn’t government maintain all drainage areas?) and inconsistent with attempts to establish clear and consistent management arrangements. There appears to be no compelling reason for the State or local government to provide direct subsidies to rural drainage systems for private benefit and hance maintenance costs should be paid for by beneficiaries as they are in the other drainage schemes. Legacy environmental and third party impacts. Values have changed, and drainage schemes that were legally established in the past may have environmental impacts that would no longer be considered acceptable. However, it is reasonable that, overtime, drainage systems be managed to ensure off-site environmental and third party impacts are minimised. The rate of improvement should be established through the regulatory regime and embedded in the licensing conditions. However a CMA or Council may choose to co-invest where priority actions to reduce the risks from drainage are identified needing to occur sooner.
Development of New Drainage Schemes New rural drainage comprises new schemes, as well as extensions of existing schemes. The report into the Status of Rural Drainage in Victoria found that there were very few situations in which the CMAs or Councils had seen demand or pressure to expand the existing rural drainage network. A number of factors are thought to have contributed to this outcome:- • The recent decade of low rainfall leading to landowners taking more of a risk based approach to land use and being prepared to manage without drains. • Drainage works being too expensive relative to the expected returns from dryland agriculture. • The drought has seen many landholders seeing the benefits of groundwater recharge that come with slower drainage • A lack of government support in terms of finances and resources to foster rural drainage. • Environmental and heritage impacts no longer being acceptable. • At a scheme level, landowners not being able to reach agreement with respect to level of service and cost sharing to support a sustainable solution. • New drainage work proposals must often go through the appropriate environmental and planning approvals for the initial works and then to undertake maintenance activities. This process is seen, by some landowners, as being too time consuming and expensive (i.e. the costs exceed the benefits). It is unlikely that the State government would fund the construction of new rural drainage schemes. The scheme should be funded by the customers benefiting from the scheme. A local group interested in developing a new drainage scheme should develop a detailed proposal that sets out the area to be drained and the proposed design of the scheme. The group should consult with local government and the CMA to determine the regulatory requirements. Regulating the establishment of new drainage is generally undertaken by a combination of both local government and CMAs. Local government is in most cases the relevant planning authority, and the CMA act as a referral authority. Referrals and approvals may also be sought from other relevant government bodies (i.e. EPBC or EES approvals).
9. Achieving clarity with Strategies and Plans It is proposed that clarity around the management of rural drainage could best be achieved by the development of a suite of documents which provide policy direction and guidance at a number of different levels. The following are four options, one or more of which can be implemented to construct an appropriate strategic framework to support any of the above Page 14
options. The options above recommend which combinations of the following strategic framework document options could best support them. A Victorian Rural Drainage Strategy (VRDS) A brief, high level document prepared by DSE in consultation with Councils and CMAs. The VRDS would apply at a state-wide level and may comprise the following components: • Definition of rural drainage • A summary of the status of rural drainage in Victoria • Objectives of rural drainage • Key issues to be addressed • Role of State Government, and other agencies • Process for identifying, or designation of, a lead rural drainage agency (depending on which option is adopted). • Cost sharing principles • Detailed options for determining beneficiaries and striking a tariff • High level principles • Relevant legislation and any suggested changes if required • Definitions of a suite of management structure options that may be adopted by the responsible authority • Guidelines for adopting particular drainage management structures • State-wide policy for regulating new drainage works and systems/schemes, to be integrated with the State Planning Policy Framework • Transition process from current to new arrangements • Priorities and targets in terms of rural drainage activities and their respective timeframes • Monitoring and reporting targets.
Regional Waterway Strategies (RWSs) (for each CMA Area) A high level document prepared by each CMA in consultation with its stakeholders. The RWSs would apply at the scale of the CMA region, be approved by the Minister, and identify where drainage was a risk or threat to environmental health of rivers and wetlands and priories where Government may choose to invest to alleviate the risk.
Municipal Rural Drainage Management A high level each municipality in consultation with its stakeholders prioritises action and investment into rural drainage. Municipalities with only minor rural drainage may choose to incorporate their priorities into their MSS and LPPF, and choose not to prepare a dedicated drainage strategy. It is important for the Council to outline their policy for regulating new drainage works and systems/schemes including indicative levels and standards of service.
Local Rural Drainage Plans (LRDPs)(for individual drainage schemes) A document referring to a specific drainage scheme or network, prepared by each drainage management group (arranged as designated by the lead agency). This document would record the result of detailed negotiations and agreements between the lead agency, local stakeholders and regulatory agencies. This document would be endorsed by in consultation with its stakeholders and approved by the lead agency. LRDPs may comprise:-
Page 15
• The status of the rural drainage scheme in question • The objectives for the drainage scheme • The key rural drainage issues to be addressed for this particular scheme • Clear specification of levels of service standards • Clear specification of the tariff that would apply to which beneficiaries • Clear description of how beneficiaries are identified • Definition of where drains are proposed or upgrades are proposed • The implementation, upgrade and/or operational costs • Establishes the cost recovery arrangements • Establishes the basis and feasibility of proceeding with the planned actions • Establishes accountability for the scheme • Priorities and targets in terms of rural drainage activities and timeframes.
An important element of the local rural drainage plan could be a risk based assessment of environmental values and threats. This would allow some routine management activities to be exempted from getting permits, but would identify areas of high value under high threat, that would require protection and permits.
Planning regulations The establishment and construction of new drainage systems/schemes, and in some cases, maintenance or upgrade works, may be regulated through land use planning policy and controls (in a similar manner to irrigation drainage). Planning policies and controls may require amendments to ensure they align with the adopted policy objectives. This may include amendments to one or more of the following: • State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) • Victorian Planning Provisions (Zones, Overlays, Particular and General Provisions) • Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) • Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) • Municipal Planning Scheme • Planning permit triggers and conditions • Triggers for the referral of permits to the relevant CMA and any other relevant referral authorities.
Page 16
xxxxXXXXxxxx
Page 17
Attachment A
Page 18
Submission to Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Inquiry into Rural Drainage within Victoria
Rural Drainage Status Report
February 2013
1 Executive Summary Rural drainage is a system of drains and other infrastructure designed to remove nuisance water from agricultural lands in order to improve agricultural production. These works provide a function that is distinct from stormwater drainage in towns, irrigation drainage, and flood mitigation works. Rural drainage often requires cooperation between many landholders to be effective, so there is a long history in Victoria of cooperative arrangements for this function, usually managed through local government. Government is also involved because rural drainage impacts on public infrastructure (particularly roads), and waterways. Following the drought from 1998 to 2010, and following a period of administrative uncertainty, rural drainage systems in Victoria have not been viewed as a high priority, and many have fallen into disrepair. Rural drainage is now the subject of a Parliamentary Inquiry in Victoria, and this report was commissioned by DSE to provide background information for that inquiry.
The purpose of the report was to collect data on existing rural drainage, as well as areas which may require drainage, throughout the state of Victoria. The data was used to determine the status of rural drainage throughout Victoria. The ‘status’ includes parameters such as legal status, asset condition, management arrangements and the length and size of the system. Data was requested from Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and also relevant municipalities. Data was received from most CMAs, although in many instances this data was limited and patchy. Virtually no data was received from the municipalities. The data was then collated and used to draw broad conclusions on the status of rural drainage in Victoria.
This report demonstrates very clearly that:
Rural drainage is a substantial community activity, involving large investment and effort by generations of Victorians. However, there is not a great deal of information about the status and condition of these systems. For example, nothing is known about the status and management arrangements for eight major drainage schemes in the Wimmera Region. The potential reasons for this dearth of information are addressed in Section 7.
Based on available data, it can be estimated that there are approximately 130 rural drainage schemes in Victoria, impacting around 1,500,000 ha of land and servicing around 5000 landholders.
The formal status of drainage schemes can vary, with some being formally recognised in government gazettes through legislation, some with formal status through their local municipality, and a large proportion having no formal status and mainly landholder managed. The variation of formality of the schemes doesn’t follow an immediate pattern, and appears to predominantly the result of historic arrangements.
A drainage scheme can be formally recognised under a variety of different acts (see section 7), each with its own nuances. The legislation used across Victoria is inconsistent, however a large number were declared under the Drainage Areas Act 1958 and the River Improvement Act 1948, both of which have since been repealed.
Few formal drainage systems are currently rated by their CMA or Council, despite CMAs raising this as being a desirable option. Legislative obstacles and political unpalatability appear to be at least partially responsible for the lack of rating being implemented.
Information on the condition of drainage assets was scarce, with information on condition only being provided for 33 schemes, the majority of which were considered to be in medium or poor condition. Even less information was provided regarding the estimated capital cost of bringing the assets back to a good condition. If the limited information can be taken as representative, this report estimates the total cost of repair and refurbishment to Victoria’s rural drainage to be less than $500 million.
Only one CMA, North Central, identified areas within their jurisdiction which they assessed as requiring drainage, however it is possible that other areas may require drainage but were not identified by the CMAs for the purposes of this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ...... ii 2 Introduction ...... 1 3 Purpose ...... 1 4 Scope ...... 2 5 Objectives ...... 2 6 Approach to Data collection ...... 2 7 Background and Drainage Types ...... 5 7.1 Background ...... 5 7.2 Definitions ...... 8 7.2.1 Regional Drains ...... 8 7.2.1.1 Open Drains ...... 8 7.2.1.2 Piped drains ...... 9 7.2.2 Farm Drains ...... 9 7.2.2.1 Tile, Pipe and Mole drains ...... 9 8 The status of Rural Drainage in Victoria: State-wide Summary ...... 10 9 Areas drained, and in need of drainage, by CMA area ...... 1 9.1 Introduction ...... 1 9.2 Corangamite CMA ...... 2 9.2.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 2 9.2.2 Map of Corangamite CMA – Existing rural drainage areas ...... 3 9.2.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 4 9.3 East Gippsland CMA ...... 6 9.3.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 6 9.3.2 Map of East Gippsland CMA – Existing rural drainage areas ...... 7 9.3.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 7 9.4 Goulburn Broken CMA ...... 9 9.4.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 9 9.4.2 Map of Goulburn Broken CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 10 9.4.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 10 9.5 Glenelg Hopkins CMA ...... 12 9.5.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 12 9.5.2 Map of Glenelg Hopkins CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 15 9.5.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 16
9.6 Mallee CMA ...... 18 9.6.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 18 9.6.2 Map of Mallee CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 19 9.6.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 19 9.7 North Central CMA ...... 22 9.7.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 22 9.7.2 Map of North Central CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 24 9.7.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 24 9.8 North East CMA...... 27 9.8.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 27 9.8.1 Map of North East CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 29 9.8.2 Areas in need of drainage ...... 29 9.9 Port Phillip and Western Port CMA...... 31 9.9.1 Summary of existing rural drainage and areas in need of Rural Drainage ...... 31 9.9.2 Map of Port Phillip & Western Port CMA –Rural Drainage areas ...... 32 9.9.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 32 9.10 Wimmera CMA ...... 34 9.10.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 34 9.10.2 Map of Wimmera CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 35 9.10.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 35 9.11 West Gippsland CMA ...... 38 9.11.1 Summary of existing rural drainage ...... 38 9.11.2 Map of West Gippsland CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas ...... 41 9.11.3 Areas in need of drainage ...... 41 9.12 References ...... 43 APPENDIX A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….44
2 Introduction At the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament, convened on the 10th October 2012, members of Victorian Parliament passed the motion (under section 33 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003) that an inquiry into matters relating to rural drainage in Victoria (excluding irrigation drainage, regional urban and metropolitan drainage) be referred to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee (ENRC) 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. To assist in this process, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has engaged Hydro Environmental to collect and collate data relating to rural drainage and prepare a report summarising the current status of rural drainage across Victoria. The information presented in this report is based on data collected in November 2012. 3 Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the current status of rural drainage across Victoria to assist and inform the DSE in developing their submission to the ENRC’s Inquiry in to rural drainage management across Victoria. ‘Status’ in this context relates to the following parameters of existing rural drainage in Victoria: • Location • Capital required for repair of drains • Asset condition • Ownership of/responsibility for assets • Size • Purpose of drains • Number of Landowners involved • Infrastructure or environmental assets protected or at risk from drains • Legislative status of scheme (i.e. gazetted) • Management arrangements • Type of drains present • Rating arrangements In addition, the ‘status’ of Victoria’s rural drainage also includes the identification of areas in need of drainage, and indicative costing of establishing the required drains. This is the first statewide review of rural drainage in Victoria.
1
4 Scope Rural Drainage works are generally an enhancement of the hydraulic capacity of drainage lines. For the purpose of this report, Rural Drainage is defined as the works and functions related to the collection and removal of water generated from local rainfall runoff from rural land. The scope excludes urban drainage and irrigation related drainage and works needed to remove flood water generated from upstream in the river catchment. The objective of rural drainage is to reduce waterlogging, improve productivity and protect private and public assets. This status report of rural drainage covers drainage works that service two or more properties and outfall to natural drainage lines in the State of Victoria. The review covers the rural portion of Melbourne Waters region (the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority (CMA) area) as this includes substantial rural drainage areas in the eastern and western rural peripheries of the catchment. The review does not cover private drains on individual properties. This review will consider existing rural drainage schemes as well as those areas currently un- drained that require rural drainage. 5 Objectives The overall aim of this review is to determine the current status of rural dryland drainage across Victoria using a desktop approach, based on information and data supplied by Catchment Management Authorities (CMA), regional local government councils, and Melbourne Water. To achieve this, the following project objectives were set: a) Collect and collate data relating to existing rural drainage schemes across Victoria by undertaking a review of literature and requesting information from rural agency officers. b) Use the information from the literature and data provided by agencies to identify areas across Victoria that are currently un-drained, but require rural drainage. c) Prepare maps to provide a visual representation of: • the area serviced by existing rural drainage schemes across Victoria; and, • the areas that still require rural drainage. d) Collate and analyse the information provided by agencies to draw conclusions on the status of rural drainage at a CMA area scale and a state wide scale. e) Prepare a high level status report on rural drainage as at December 2012, with details of areas drained and areas in need of drainage, identified at both a State and CMA level. 6 Approach to Data collection To meet the objectives of this review, a spreadsheet based questionnaire was developed and pre-populated with existing rural drainage information relevant to each CMA area. To gain an understanding of the current status of rural drainage, all CMAs, Melbourne Water and nominated Municipalities were requested to complete the following tasks: 1. Specific information to allow us to map drainage schemes including: i. For existing drainage schemes
2
The boundary of the overall catchment area currently serviced by rural drainage. The boundary of the area serviced by individual rural drainage schemes. The location of the drainage works. Points of outfall for drainage works. ii. For areas in need of drainage The indicative boundary of the overall area still requiring rural drainage. The boundary of the individual areas still requiring rural drainage. Expected points of outfall for areas requiring rural drainage.
2. All agencies contacted were provided with a copy of the rural drainage status review questionnaire which requested the following information as a minimum: • Management challenges faced in implementing and operating rural drainage in their area of management; and, • Policy issues related to the establishment of drainage schemes and supporting their ongoing operation, maintenance and management in each area of management. • Information on the areas drained and in need of drainage. Available information was provided by each CMA (excluding PPWPCMA) and two of the 15 municipalities contacted. Of the 59 rural municipal regions included in the scope of this review, only a small number are actually involved in the management of rural drainage. Table 1 provides the number of municipalities within each CMA area along with the abbreviations adopted for each of the CMAs in this report. It should be noted that many municipalities cover more than one CMA boundary.
Table 1: No. of Municipalities within CMA Areas Catchment Management Authorities No. of Municipalities within Each CMA Area Full Name Abbreviation Corangamite CMA CCMA 8 East Gippsland CMA EGCMA 3 Goulburn Broken CMA GBCMA 10 Glenelg Hopkins CMA GHCMA 11 Mallee CMA MCMA 6 North Central CMA NCCMA 14 North East CMA NECMA 6 Port Phillip & Western Port CMA PPWPCMA 9 West Gippsland CMA WGCMA 6 Wimmera CMA WCMA 8
3. More detailed information related to existing rural drainage schemes was also requested from the agencies. Agencies were asked to review the preloaded information provided on existing rural drainage schemes (that was gleaned from existing documentation) and include any additional information deemed appropriate. This included information on drainage schemes that may be missing from historical documentation as well as nominating areas within their management area that were currently un-drained but required drainage.
3
4. CMAs were requested to provide advice on any Municipalities in their respective CMA area that may hold Rural Drainage information which is additional to that held by each CMA (this included information that was useful in determining the current status of rural drainage, drain asset condition and desirable policy changes).
NB: Due to the limited availability of readily usable GIS spatial data, mapping information collected was largely restricted to PDF maps of existing schemes with only two CMAs (Corangamite and North Central) providing Shape files for the GIS software. The PDF maps were digitised to crudely represent existing scheme areas and areas requiring drainage.
4
7 Background and Drainage Types 7.1 Background
Works Within Victoria there are three main types of drainage; urban stormwater drainage, rural irrigation drainage and rural dryland drainage. This review is concerned with rural dryland drainage which can be defined as communal drainage systems that serve two or more landholders (Regional Drains). The purpose of rural drainage is to collect and remove water generated from local rainfall runoff from rural land. Rural drains are largely used to remove excess water from agricultural land, but can also be used to divert rainfall runoff from roads or other infrastructure, or in some cases to connect wetlands. Typical drainage systems involve a network of farm specific collector works that collect water at a farm or property scale (Farm Drains). These farm drain works then outfall water to regional drains which service two or more landowners. Larger regional drains eventually outfall to either a natural waterway or a wetland. In some instances road table drains are part of regional drainage systems. The physical properties of regional rural drainage system works across Victoria are diverse and can be separated into a number of different categories. This review is concerned with regional dryland drainage systems which include the following forms of works: • Modified Rivers/Creeks – where natural waterways are altered to improve their hydraulic capacity and depth. This typically involves straightening or enlarging waterways. • Earthen open cut drains – road table drains or borrow pits which vary in shape and size. • Earthen open cut drains that are lined – lining is usually included to improve hydraulic capacity or improve the stability of the waterway by reducing erosion. • Piped drains. Farm drains within Victoria (not included in the scope of this review) typically include small excavated drains (including improved natural waterways) but may include tile drains and mole drains. Further information and definitions on rural drainage types is provided Section 6.1. Regulatory Arrangements around rural dryland drainage schemes in Victoria can be divided into the following types: • Gazetted Drainage Scheme – A drainage system that services several landholders and has been officially declared a gazetted drainage area by the Minister, through legislative mechanisms such as the Water Act 1989 or the Drainage Areas Act 1958 prior to its repeal. Gazetting a drainage area formalises its function, and subjects it to a higher level of regulation, and administrative and legislative requirements, but also gives an Authority more options for the management and funding of the scheme. • Registered Drainage Scheme – A drainage system that services several landholders and has not been gazetted, but has used other formal regulatory mechanisms to manage aspects of the scheme, such as setting up committees responsible for decision making, or implementing a special rate or tariff for the service. These may be managed by CMAs or municipalities. • Informal Drainage Network – A drainage network that has been developed, funded and is managed privately by local landholders, and is not formally recognised by any legislation, funding or rating arrangements.
5
In Victoria, the designation of responsibility for the management, establishment, rating and regulation of rural drainage is achieved through a myriad of different legislative mechanisms, some of which are outlined in further detail in the State Wide Summary (Section 7). The Management Responsibility of rural drainage schemes refers to the entity responsible for various aspects of establishing, operating and maintaining the schemes. These aspects may include the regulation and construction of new drains, maintenance and operation of existing drains, dispute resolution and responsibility for raising funds or funding via rating (tariffs) for operation and maintenance. Under current policy and legislation, there are a number of different entities that can be responsible for drainage schemes, and management status of a scheme can be broadly classified as follows: • Catchment Management Authority managed • Water Authority managed • Local Government managed • Ad hoc land holder managed. A drainage scheme may sometimes be managed by a combination of the above. Benefits and impacts Rural drainage fosters agriculture and food production as it helps to; • reduce surface and subsurface soil profile waterlogging, • prevent or reduce surface water flow onto agricultural land, • reduce or safely mitigate the effect of flow concentration across steep landscapes, • increase the speed and efficiency of surface water removal, • mitigates land salinisation by reducing the infiltration of water to the soil profile which in turn reduces watertable levels. When watertables are within about 2 m of surface, they may contribute to increased land salinisation and reduced productivity, • assists in providing a watering regime that better suits the natural environmental values in some areas where changes in land use (clearing of land) have led to changes in the catchment runoff characteristics, and • reduces conflict between neighbours over local flooding. In general terms when seeking approval to install new drains or maintain existing drainage works the following are considered: • Compliance with Environmental and Planning regulation • Funding and ongoing cost sharing and management arrangements • Access arrangements to drainage works • Outfall availability • Downstream impacts related to nutrient, sediment and other pollutants (e.g. salt) • Best farm management practices • Flow attenuation relative to the pre-works runoff • Wetland connections and their impacts in the short and long term. Although regional rural drains benefit agricultural production and sustainability, they can also have adverse environmental impacts. The construction of drains may impact adversely on
6
wetlands, freshwater marshes and freshwater meadows through reducing the occurrence and intensity of natural flow regimes and natural inundation requirements. Water generated from agricultural land and carried by drains can also have high concentrations of salt, nutrients, sediment and agricultural chemicals and have adverse impacts on receiving waterways such as wetlands, lakes, rivers and estuaries. Alterations to wetland, waterway and riparian ecosystems as described above can also have negative impacts on the biodiversity present in or near drainage systems. If the capacity of a rural drain is significantly greater than the natural flow regime in the area before drains were constructed, the drainage scheme can have negative impacts on the receiving waterways (streams or other drainage line waterways) by delivering flows which exceed their natural capacity. These receiving waterways can become eroded, threatening public assets such as bridges, roads and power lines which may have public safety implications. These eroding waterways may also lead to highly turbid water reaching the receiving water bodies. Funding Historically (pre 1992), drainage schemes within Victoria have been built using a combination of private and public funds. Under those arrangements landholder contributions were topped up or matched by Government contributions to fund the costs of establishing the drains. Ongoing maintenance costs have typically been met by landholders. In 1992, the Drainage Areas Act 1958 was repealed. Since that time, most drainage works have been legislated under the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 and the Water Act 1989 . Prior to the establishment of Victorian Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs), drainage schemes were managed by local government through drainage Trusts and other similar bodies. In 1994, however, the municipalities in Victoria underwent a significant amalgamation process, reducing the number of existing councils from 210 to 78, leading to some uncertainty in situations where the original local government responsible for the drainage system no longer existed. In 1997, CMAs were given powers to manage drainage, as well as to introduce a tariff to fund works under Part 10 of the Water Act 1989 . The change in State Government in 1999, lead to the removal of the power of the CMAs to charge a general waterway tariff. The CMAs were still able to raise tariffs for specific drainage schemes under s.259c of the Water Act. Although CMAs were empowered to manage rural drainage schemes, unless responsibility was formally transferred to them, local government remained responsible for public drainage schemes under s.198 of the Local Government Act. The data collected for this report identified at least 15 drainage schemes which that are managed by a municipality to some degree, the majority of which are in the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. Municipalities are able to rate and set up committees of management for drainage schemes under sections 162/163 and section 86 respectively, of the Local Government Act 1989. An example is the Tirrengower Drainage Area, which is managed and rated by the Colac-Otway Shire. The extensive drought conditions from the mid-late 1990s until early 2010 led to much less demand for drainage and drain maintenance. This change, combined with the large number of changes in land ownership over the drought period, means that landholders are not familiar with the level of service that a drain could provide. Historic shared maintenance responsibilities have meant that rural dryland drainage has been under resourced for the better part of the last decade. As a result drainage infrastructure across the State has continued to deteriorate, and increasing confusion surrounds the issue of who is responsible for arranging and funding maintenance. In some cases, portions of drainage waterways have become blocked with vegetation (grasses, shrubs and trees) and debris, leading to sediment and nutrients being trapped in the waterway. These waterway build ups may have three effects, namely:
7
• reduced waterway capacity which, in turn reduces standards of service and water velocities, • a greater level of sediment deposition, hence further reduction in service standards, • changes in the waterway and riparian habitat which could attract and foster the occurrence of environmentally significant flora and fauna species. Currently rural drainage systems are either administratively supported through their respective CMA or municipality, or rely upon adhoc cooperation between landowners.
7.2 Definitions This section provides definitions of the various types of physical drainage infrastructure installed across Victoria to manage rural surface water runoff. To provide clarity, definitions for both regional scale rural drains and farm scale drains are provided. 7.2.1 Regional Drains Regional drains can be characterised as large communal drains that serve multiple (two or more) landholders to cooperatively manage excess runoff water. A regional drain typically serves as a communal outfall point for a network of smaller channels at the farm or property scale. Regional drains accumulate runoff from two or more properties and eventually outfall water to a larger receiving waterway. 7.2.1.1 Open Drains Regional open drains are constructed using excavation machinery and are typically trapezoidal shaped with a flat bottom and sides sloped between near vertical to typically 30 0 with enough longitudinal slope (gradient) along the drainage line to ensure that water is removed quickly. Typically, open drains follow natural drainage lines but may be located along fence lines to minimise disruption to farm operations. Waterway lining Typically drains have earthen water ways. In these waterways where the batter slopes pass through saturation and draining phases, the soils in the batters gradually slump. The batters therefore become steeper and some of the soil passes downstream as sediment in the water. In areas where soils are susceptible to erosion, velocities are high, or the land area to be occupied by drains is to be minimised, the perimeter of the drain cross section (waterway) may be lined with concrete. The concrete may be either reinforced with steel, fibreglass or steel fibres, or unreinforced, depending upon the replacement interval and the operating environment. The use of concrete or other lining material means that for a given drain waterway size, greater flows can be passed without causing erosion, thus improving water quality. Concrete lined drains also ensure the drain cross section is maintained and that the establishment of in-drain ecosystems that may include species of environmental significance do not generally develop within the unmaintained drain waterway, as can happen in an unlined, unmaintained drain. The size of open drains depends on the amount of water to be removed, the slope of the land and the lining material. Table drains Roads generally do not follow catchment boundaries, and thus cross catchment boundaries and natural and rural drainage lines. A table drain is an excavation along either side of formed roads to ensure that the road pavement is drained and road
8
maintenance needs are minimised. They also ensure that runoff from adjacent land is safely removed and does not remain for long periods and saturate the road profile. These table drain excavations are often graded to a low point to ensure water running off the road formation is lead to the nearest waterway or wetland where it is often piped under the road using a road culvert or bridge. Road table drains are usually excavated and shaped at the time the road formation is constructed. Road table drains are usually earthen and have either Vee or trapezoid shaped waterways. The dimensions of a table drain depend upon the height and cross section of the road pavement as well as the catchment size, soil types, slope, road alignment and distance between road culverts and natural drainage line interception points. Because of the number of roads and the number of drainage lines crossed by roads, road table drains are an important part of the rural drainage network. In some cases the road table drains can, where approved by the road authority, become a formal part of Rural Drainage schemes. 7.2.1.2 Piped drains Where drainage line catchments are small, regional drains may be piped. Pipe drains are usually installed in areas where there is insufficient space to fit an open drain, open drains would impede access or high value agriculture results in the most cost effective solution. Pipe drains are usually more expensive than open drains and can be more steeply graded. Pipes are usually concrete but may be made of any material (steel, PVC polyethylene, fibreglass, etc.). The pipes and joints do not necessarily need to be impermeable provided they are structurally sound and the engineering related to their installation is such that any leakage does not affect the stability of the structure or lead to water being located where it is not wanted. Typically pipe drains are located in the upper parts of catchments. 7.2.2 Farm Drains Farm drainage systems collect water on individual farms and convey that water to the regional drainage system. Typically farm drains comprise a network of surface drains that outfall to larger regional (communal) drain to prevent crop and pasture losses through waterlogging. However where ground conditions dictate, subsurface drains may be used in place of surface drains to mitigate the impact of subsurface waterlogging. On-farm surface drains are typically either small open earthen drainage channels or a network of subsurface drains that may comprise tile, pipe or mole drains or a combination of all four drain types. 7.2.2.1 Tile, Pipe and Mole drains Tile drains , also referred to as subsurface pipe drains, are a system of submerged, short butt jointed, small diameter (typically 100 mm - 200 mm) clay or concrete pipes. Tile drainage is best suited to deep permeable soils where their depth allows wider spacing and minimises installation costs. Tile drainage can also successfully service poorly draining soils such as heavy clays, but have to be installed very close together. This close spacing design can result in tile drainage installation being uneconomical in extensive farmland systems. Historically, tile drains have been constructed using clay pipes or tiles, however new tile drain systems are being constructed using slotted plastic PVC or corrugated polythene pipe and are now often referred to as pipe drains . Mole drains are closely spaced subsoil drainage systems to control the effect of rising water tables and saline waterlogging especially in areas of heavy clay soils or sub soils and are most useful in areas where the rates of soil water movement are low. Mole drains are non-structured, sub-surface drainage passages that allow the ingress of water. These continuous cavities (usually circular in shape) are formed using a mole plough that is
9
towed behind a tractor or other towing equipment. The mole, which is the shoe of the plough, forms an underground conduit through which water can pass. The main function of mole drains is to reduce the occurrence of waterlogging through reducing subsurface water and removal of water that would otherwise saturate the soil profile and only be removed via natural runoff, deep percolation and groundwater movement processes which can take a substantial amount of time. In some areas the maintenance needs of mole drains which are susceptible to collapse is high.
8 The status of Rural Drainage in Victoria: State-wide Summary The following section is the statewide summary which has been collated from information received from individual CMAs. More detailed information is provided in Section 9 and is broken down by CMA. Table 2 (below) is a summary of key details which have been drawn from the detailed table of all data received, provided in Appendix A. The information that was available for collection regarding rural drainage in Victoria is by no means complete, however some conclusions are able to be drawn. Table 2: Summary of Drainage Status by CMA Does the Indicative Indicative Number of Indicative Capital CMA have Area number of Drainage area Funding CMA a written Requiring drainage schemes that Drained required Drainage Drainage schemes are Gazetted (ha) ($) Strategy? (ha) Unknown Corangamite No 5 2 14,150 Unknown ($2.4M min) East Gippsland No 2 Nil 11,000 Unknown Unknown Goulburn Broken No 5 Nil 25,000 Unknown Unknown Glenelg Hopkins Yes (2003) 45 24 200,000 Unknown Unknown Mallee No Nil Nil Nil Unknown ** Unknown Unknown Unknown North Central Yes (1999) 5 1 Unknown (>230,000) (9 areas) 8 schemes Unknown North East Yes (1999) 4 schemes Unknown $0.2M (2 areas) (> 410,000) Port Phillip & Unknown Unknown 2 Unknown Unknown Western Port (>2) (>42,920) Unknown West Gippsland Yes (1999) 20 19 Unknown Unknown (>50,000) Unknown Wimmera Yes (2001) 8 0 Unknown** Unknown (>100,000) *Note: Where area (ha) values have been estimated through mapping, values have been rounded down, as these estimations have generally overestimated the border of the drainage area.
** Note: These CMAs may include some drainage remediation resulting from the decommissioning of the Wimmera Mallee Stock and Domestic channels which have been replaced with water supply pipelines.
10
1. General observations. The approximate size and locations of existing and potentially required drainage, as identified by received data, is illustrated in Figure 1. a. There are around 130 drainage schemes across Victoria. b. The area impacted by rural drainage services is likely to be less than 1,500,000 ha with about 5,000 landowners involved. c. The average area serviced per km of drain is about 200 ha. d. Most of the drainage schemes are managed under ad hoc landowner group cost sharing and management arrangements. Only about 50 schemes have formal management arrangements based on a legislatively supported gazetted scheme. However, funding for these schemes is not guaranteed. e. Many of the schemes were installed from the 1950s to 1970s and since then have had little or minimal maintenance. For the 33 schemes for which condition ratings were provided; i. 4 were classed as good and meeting expectations ii. 14 were classified as being in medium condition (i.e. assets in fair condition and providing a level of service less than optimal but still acceptable to stakeholders (life expectancy 20-30 years) iii. 15 were classified as being in a poor state of repair with assets being badly deteriorated but structurally sound, waterway in need of maintenance with level of service provided being below expectations (life expectancy 0-20 years). f. A large proportion of the assets are therefore in need of refurbishment, replacement or installation of alternative waterlogging mitigation measure to enable the desired drainage service to continue. Based on the very limited information available, the total replacement cost of these works should be less than $500 M in 2013 dollars.
11
12
2. Significant knowledge gaps in rural drainage systems (administration status and spatial data). As can be seen in Table 2, the mapped data and Appendix A there are major knowledge gaps in rural drainage systems (administration, status and spatial data). Possible reasons for these knowledge gaps include: a) agency personnel turnover which has led to a loss of corporate knowledge or at least easy access to that knowledge b) municipal amalgamations and its associated loss of corporate knowledge c) the need for drainage not evident during 2000 – 2010 drought period meaning that CMA and municipal skills in this area were not fostered or maintained by long serving staff and not developed by new personnel d) disbandment of drainage trusts and responsibilities handed over to CMA’s meant that local and corporate knowledge has been lost e) removal of the ability for the CMA to generally rate and fund drainage support has meant that resources working in the area have been significantly reduced f) more working being undertaken by consultants and the CMAs being unable to fund those higher cost resources to retrieve data g) insufficient time and resources being allocated to the project at a CMA level.
3. Summary of legislative mechanisms: In Victoria, the designation of responsibility for the management, establishment, rating and regulation of rural drainage is achieved through a myriad of different, and often convoluted legislative mechanisms. Specific information on the legislative aspects of formal or registered drainage schemes was sought from the CMA’s, however only limited information was received. Table 3 illustrates a number of the legislative mechanisms in place either currently or historically, and their purpose. The uptake of these mechanisms varies, with some used frequently (mainly the historic gazetting of drainage areas or river improvement areas under the Drainage Areas Act 1958 and the River Improvement Act 1948) while others (e.g. s188 of the Water Act 1989) can be used in theory, but there don’t appear to be any instances where they have actually been used.
1
Table 3: Summary of Drainage Legislation
Act Purpose Drainage Areas Act 1928 Used to declare (by gazette) a formal drainage area Drainage Areas Act 1958 Used to declare (by gazette) a formal drainage area River Improvement Act 1948 Used to declare (by gazette) a formal river improvement area Can be used by CMA to assume responsibility for a drainage scheme previously the responsibility of Water Act 1989 s198(2) another entity (i.e. the municipality), however this is optional, they are not required to do this according to s124(5).
Allows CMAs to declare a designated waterway through formal government gazette. Drains in the Water Act 1989 s188 designated waterway are subject to the same level of regulation by the CMA as the rest of the waterway.
Minister can formally gazette a waterway management scheme (which can include drains) and nominate a Water Act 1989 s216 CMA or municipal council (see s201 of the Local Government Act) as responsible for the scheme.
Enables CMAs to raise a specific tariff for drainage purposes. No reported instances of a CMA Water Act 1989 s259 ( c ) successfully using this section to raise a tariff for rural drainage, has only been used for flood management.
Local Government Act 1989 s86 Committee of management established and delegated powers (in this case relating to drainage) by Council
Local Government Act 1989 s163 Drainage scheme rated through the municipality as a 'special rates and services' service
States that any public drains( and associated works and materials) within the municipal district are vested in Local Government Act 1989 s198 the Council, unless they have been actively de-vested of the drains through a different mechanism (e.g. s198 of the Water Act)
9 Areas drained, and in need of drainage, by CMA area
9.1 Introduction As part of the data collection questionnaire, each of the CMAs was requested to provide available information on the status of drainage within their respective areas. This information included: For drained areas • The management status of each system • The area serviced (including a location map) • Asset condition • Expenditure needs • Environmental features impacted. For un-drained areas • Area in need of drainage (including a location map). These areas are defined as areas that are poorly drained and in need of or / require drainage infrastructure to be installed or landscape enhancements to occur to ensure that agricultural production, private and public asset functionality and life and/or environmental assets are sustainably retained. If these areas are to be drained, the necessary State and Federal environmental and planning legislation must be satisfied. The following sections and maps outlining the status of Rural Drainage in each of the CMA areas have been prepared from the information provided from each of the CMAs. The information collated in the status tables was the most comprehensive possible to collect in the
1
short timeframe available for the preparation of this report. It should be noted, however, that there are significant gaps in the information shown in Appendix A. The reasons for these gaps are addressed in detail in Section 7, but can be summarised as a combination of insufficient resources, time and/or data available to the CMAs to comprehensively and accurately complete the data collection sheets for this report. The information on every drainage scheme listed is available in Appendix A, but may not appear on the drainage maps produced for each CMA. The incompleteness of the maps is a result of significant gaps in available spatial information on drainage systems across each CMA. In addition, in some cases only spatial information was available for certain drainage schemes, but the CMA had no additional information for the drains, such as the condition, area, management status etc. of the drains. These schemes are still tabulated in Appendix A (and clearly marked), however the only information supplied for the drains is their area, all other cells are left blank. The areas (ha) provided for these schemes have been calculated in the process of developing the maps, and should be treated as an approximation, rather than an accurate, definitive measure of the scheme’s size. The limited information available for inclusion in these sections highlights the need for more resources and time to be invested in documenting drainage across the State.
9.2 Corangamite CMA The Corangamite CMA area covers 13,000 km 2 (or 6% of Victoria’s total land area) and is located in the south-west of Victoria. Approximately 350,000 people live within the catchment area, which stretches from Ballarat to Geelong and along the coast to Peterborough. There are 8 municipalities within the Corangamite CMA area. Significant river systems within the CMA include the Aire, Barwon, Gellibrand, Curdies, Leigh, Moorabool and Woady Yaloak rivers. The Corangamite CMA does not have a regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy. 9.2.1 Summary of existing rural drainage Within the Corangamite CMA area there are five recognised rural drainage schemes. Two of these schemes are formally gazetted, one is a registered drainage scheme and the remaining two are ad hoc landowner managed schemes. In view of information provided by the Corangamite CMA, the following general statements can be made in reference to existing drainage schemes within the Corangamite CMA’s area; • Two of the CCMA’s largest rural drainage schemes are formed in part by concrete structures. The schemes are; o The Woady Yaloak Diversion Scheme; and, o Lough Calvert Drainage Scheme. The concrete structures were constructed approximately 50 years ago and are nearing the end of their life. Currently, operation and routine maintenance of the schemes are funded through the State government via annual statutory grant funding to the CMA. Major investment is now required, however, to renew the structures if these schemes are to be maintained and operated into the future to the required management standard. The CMA estimate that $2.4M of capital investment is required to ensure the effective ongoing operation of these two major drainage schemes. An investigation by Corangamite CMA has also indicated that the frequency of operation of these schemes may be reduced due to climate change factors (i.e. less rainfall/ waterway runoff). Future management plans for the Woady Yaloak Drainage Scheme is detailed in the State Government's 2011 Western Region Sustainable Water Strategy - which the CMA and DSE are implementing in accordance with the identified actions. These
2
plans have drawn on the climate change research mentioned above, and have a focus on restoring the values of Lake Corangamite, which is a Ramsar wetland Site. • The drainage infrastructure within the Tirrengower 1 & 2 drainage areas, which service a substantial area, are currently assessed to be in a medium condition. Given that this drainage scheme services an area of some 9,000 ha, it is reasonable to assume that any capital investment for infrastructure upgrades, in addition to that required to rejuvenate the Woady Yaloak Diversion Scheme, and Lough Calvert Drainage Scheme, would be substantial. • The Tirrengower 1 & 2 drainage areas are managed as one, implementing a different management arrangement in comparison to most other drainage schemes in Victoria. The area is managed predominantly by landholders, but through a committee of management which is set up formally through the municipality (Colac-Otway Shire) under s86 of the Local Government Act 1989 . Beneficiaries of the drainage area are also rated by the Colac-Otway Shire using s163 of the Local Government Act . • On a prorata basis, the annual maintenance cost for the drainage schemes in the Corangamite schemes could be approximately $120,000/yr. Table 4 provides a summary of the current status of existing rural drainage schemes within the Corangamite CMA area. Additional information on these drainage schemes are provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report.
Table 4: Existing rural drainage schemes within the Corangamite CMA.
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area (ha) (ha) of Length (km) drain(s) No. of landowners involved of Status Scheme Management Status condition Capital O&M Area serviced serviced Area Asset Annual Registered Local Tirrengower 1 & 2 9,000 163 163 Landowner Govt. Medium Unknown Unknown Group/area Managed Adhoc Land- Aire River 200 30 21 landowner owner Poor Unknown Unknown group/area managed Adhoc Lake Modewarre 340 1 7 landowner Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown group/area Lough Calvert Gazetted CMA 2,820 34 103 Medium $575,000 $40,000 Drainage Scheme Area Managed Woady Yaloak Gazetted CMA 1,790 38 178 Medium $1.8M $80,000 Diversion Scheme Area Managed Total 14,150 266 472 N/A N/A N/A $2.4M* $120,000*
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. 9.2.2 Map of Corangamite CMA – Existing rural drainage areas The map included as Figure 2 was produced using Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial data provided by the CCMA and provides an indication of where existing rural drainage schemes are located within the Corangamite CMA.
3
Figure 2 also shows the indicative size, asset condition status and scheme status (i.e. Gazetted or Non Gazetted) as tabulated in Table 4. The rural drains within the Corangamite CMA area are open earthen drains which service rural agricultural land and outfall to rivers, creeks and lakes. 9.2.3 Areas in need of drainage Neither the Corangamite CMA (and municipalities within the Corangamite CMA area) nor any reports indicated that there were additional areas that required rural drainage.
4
5
9.3 East Gippsland CMA The East Gippsland CMA area covers the easternmost part of Victoria and spans from the Alpine ranges in the North West of the catchment to Bairnsdale and Lakes Entrance in the South across to Mallacoota on the Victorian – New South Wales border in the east. The East Gippsland CMA area is covered by 3 municipalities. The CMA area covers approximately 21,000 km², or 9% of Victoria’s total land area. The EGCMA does not have a regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy. 9.3.1 Summary of existing rural drainage There are two recognised rural drainage areas within the East Gippsland CMA, however current management arrangements and historic scheme information for these areas is limited. Although a rural drainage assessment report was completed by the CMA in 2000 and 2001, the assessment report and its associated rural Drainage Strategy was not provided by the East Gippsland CMA as part of the data collection process. The following rural drainage information was however obtained through discussions with EGCMA staff. At the time of its formation in 1997, the EGCMA inherited responsibility for what is now called the Snowy Brodribb Rural Drainage Scheme. This scheme was formerly operated and administered by the Snowy River Improvement Trust. The Snowy Brodribb Rural Drainage Scheme has not been rated since the CMA lost its catchment tariff in 1999. . The Bete Bolong scheme functions as a rural drainage network, but also as flood protection infrastructure including levees and flood gates as well as drains. In the early 2000s, a business case was prepared for the Snowy Brodribb Rural Drainage Schemes. The Business Case could not be located by the EGCMA staff, however they did advise that the document was based on the assumption that the changes to tariff raising powers in the Water Act would be reversed to their pre-1999 form. In addition, historically, the scheme (particularly downstream) never operated effectively because a ‘beneficiary pays’ approach could never be established. In addition, drainage has always been difficult to maintain because of the challenges associated with frequent closures of the estuary mouth near Lake Corringle. A small number of drainage works also exist along the Tambo River, but these have not been managed by LGAs or the EGCMA. These drainage works have fallen into disrepair. Given the lack of available information, indicative values for capital funding requirements and operation and maintenance funding for rural drainage within the EGCMA could not be provided. As such, it is reasonable to assume that rural drainage within the EGCMA has not been closely managed or well-funded over the previous decade. On a prorata basis, based on the West Gippsland costs, the annual maintenance costs for drainage schemes in the East Gippsland CMA could be approximately $260,000/yr. Table 5 below provides a summary of the current status of existing rural drainage schemes within the East Gippsland CMA area. Additional information on these existing drainage schemes is provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report.
6
Table 5: Existing rural drainage schemes within the East Gippsland CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M
Snowy Brodribb Drainage District Five distinct zones: Adhoc Assets landowner • Bete Bolong 11,000 110 Up to 25 managed by Unknown Unknown Unknown group/ • Newmeralla landowners area • Orbost East • Jarrahmond; and, • Corringle.
Lower Tambo 25 1.5 Up to 25 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Total * 11,025 111.5 ~50 N/A N/A N/A Unknown Unknown
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. 9.3.2 Map of East Gippsland CMA – Existing rural drainage areas The map shown in Figure 3 below was produced from digitising historic rural drainage scheme information provided by the EGCMA in PDF form. The scheme areas shown in the map below provide an indication of the spatial distribution of existing drainage schemes within the East Gippsland CMA. Figure 3 also shows the indicative size, asset condition status and scheme status (i.e. Gazetted or Non Gazetted) as tabulated in Table 5. The rural drains within the Corangamite CMA area are open earthen drains which service rural agricultural land and outfall to rivers creeks and lakes. The condition of these assets is unknown. 9.3.3 Areas in need of drainage EGCMA (and municipalities within the EGCMA area) did not indicate that there were any areas additional to those listed in Table 5 that required rural drainage. Similarly, a review of existing literature did not identify additional areas within the EGCMA that require rural drainage.
7
8
9.4 Goulburn Broken CMA The Goulburn Broken CMA area covers an area of 24,300 km 2 which represents approximately 10.5 % of Victoria's total land area. The catchment is characterised by extensive agriculture and although only 2% of the Murray Darling Basin’s land area, the catchment generates 11% of the basins water resources and contains one of Victoria’s largest and most important water supply catchments, Eildon. The Goulburn Broken CMA area is covered by 10 municipalities. The Goulburn Broken catchment is bordered by the River Murray in the north and extends from Yarrawonga in the East to Echuca in the West. The western catchment boundary then follows the line of the Campaspe river south toward Heathcote and into the foothills of Victoria’s Alpine region, taking in the mountainous township of Marysville at the southern end of the catchment. The eastern catchment boundary borders the NECMA area and includes Mansfield and Benalla when heading north before reaching the River township of Yarrawonga. Major river systems include the Broken Creek and Goulburn River as well as the River Murray which includes the iconic Barmah Forest National Park. The GBCMA has a Set of Best Principles and Standards for Drainage in Dryland Catchments but does not have a regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy. 9.4.1 Summary of existing rural drainage The Goulburn Broken CMA has no gazetted rural dryland drainage schemes, however historically the GBCMA has recognised ad hoc drainage systems identified following work carried out for the Broken Creek Management Strategy (developed by SKM in 1998), as well as areas nominated in ‘Rural Drainage in Victoria - Scoping Study’ (Argent & Ewing, 1996) which was completed by the then Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE). The GBCMA has five known drainage schemes (identified in Table 6), which were managed by the relevant municipalities about ten years ago. The drainage schemes are now informal schemes which the CMA has had little involvement with, and there appears to be little information available about their current status or management arrangements. The schemes are thought to be predominantly landholder funded and managed. The Broken Creek Management Strategy identified concerns relating to unplanned drainage and its impact on downstream landholders, so in 2002, the GBCMA commissioned a report: ‘Best Practice Principles and Standards for Drainage in Dryland Catchments Background Report’ (SMEC 2002). This document provided an outline of the standards which could be considered in developing local (on farm) and regional (group) drainage schemes. The purpose of the report is to assist in the planning process when drainage schemes are in the conceptual stage; however the CMA indicated that as the Best Practice Principles and Standards document was based around irrigation drainage it had limitations, particularly around future operation and maintenance of newly developed schemes as well as ongoing financial contributions for operation and maintenance. In addition, the Goulburn Broken CMA has had minimal involvement in rural drainage management, and has had little reason to put the best practice principles and standards into practice, although it has been implemented as part of developing dryland farm plans which require on-farm drainage. The GBCMA has also played the role of mediator to assist with resolution of drainage-related disputes between neighbouring landowners. The GBCMA recently conducted extensive community consultation regarding the updating of the Goulburn Broken CMA Catchment Strategy in 2012. Rural drainage, and any associated concerns, did not emerge as an issue during this process.
9
As shown in Table 6, the extent of knowledge on existing ad hoc rural drainage systems within the GBCMA appears scant. Some additional information on these drainage areas for the GBCMA is provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report.
Table 6: Existing rural drainage schemes within the Goulburn Broken CMA.
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M
Unknown Currawa 2,927 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Councils or Unknown Unknown Unknown landowners?)
Unknown Jubilee Swamp 6,661 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Councils or Unknown Unknown Unknown landowners?)
Unknown Caniambo 13,052 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Councils or Unknown Unknown Unknown landowners?)
Little Major Unknown 1,040 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Councils or Unknown Unknown Unknown Creek landowners?)
Unknown Reedy Lake 1,295 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Councils or Unknown Unknown Unknown landowners?)
Total * 24,975 Unknown Unknown N/A N/A N/A Unknown Unknown
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available.
9.4.2 Map of Goulburn Broken CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas The map included as Figure 4 was produced from digitising indicative rural drainage information provided by the GBCMA. The information was provided in the form of screen shots from GIS output showing Victoria’s wetland layer supplemented with descriptions of where existing ad hoc drainage systems may exist. The scheme areas shown in the map below provide an indication on where existing ad hoc drainage schemes could be located within the GBCMA area. 9.4.3 Areas in need of drainage As part of the data collection process and subsequent communication, there has been no indication from the GBCMA (and municipalities within the GBCMA area) of any new significant developments in rural drainage. Similarly, a review of existing literature did not identify additional areas within the GBCMA that require rural drainage.
10
11
9.5 Glenelg Hopkins CMA The Glenelg-Hopkins region covers some 27 000 km 2 representing about 12 % of Victoria's total area. The Glenelg Hopkins CMA region straddles the Victoria-South Australian border from just south of Edenhope to Victoria’s most westerly coastal area. From there, it extends from the Lower Glenelg National Park in the west taking following the coastline taking in the seaside township of Portland all the way to beyond Warrnambool in the east. Main townships along the eastern boundary include Terang, Skipton and Beaufort. The northern edge of the catchment includes the township of Ararat further onward over the Grampians and toward the Victorian-South Australian border. The western district volcanic plains which cover most of the Glenelg Hopkins area are characterised by stony rises, clay plains, and numerous lakes and swamps. Because of the volcanic geology which disrupted drainage, natural drainage networks are poorly-developed in many areas. When these areas were settled, significant areas of the swampy and low-lying land were drained to improve agricultural productivity. Most drainage areas in the Glenelg Hopkins area are not significantly influenced by overflows from large rivers and are mostly affected by rainfall in the local catchment. The Glenelg Hopkins area has the largest total area and highest proportion of drained land of any Victorian CMA. The recognised drainage areas make up approximately 8% of the Glenelg Hopkins region. Major waterways within the CMA include the Glenelg, Hopkins and Wannon rivers. The Glenelg Hopkins CMA Rural Drainage Strategy was developed in 2003 and the CMA has been active in on an ad hoc basis fostering drainage schemes across its area. The current strategy was for the period 2004-2007 but has never been implemented due to a lack of focus on rural drainage over recent years. 9.5.1 Summary of existing rural drainage Based on the information available, the Glenelg Hopkins CMA area probably has the largest total area and highest proportion of drained dryland of any CMA area in Victoria. The Glenelg Hopkins Strategy for Existing Rural Drainage Areas in 2004-2007 identified 45 drainage areas in the Glenelg Hopkins Region. Of these, 23 were gazetted under the Drainage Areas Act, and whilst 19 of these schemes have had rating schemes in the past, only four appear to have operating rating schemes now. The exact location and extent of many of the drainage areas is unknown, however the total size of drainage areas in the region has been estimated to be approximately 200,000 ha. There is no formally recognised management framework for drainage in the GHCMA, and no resources with which to undertake potential action. The Glenelg Hopkins CMA has, however, been providing coordination assistance to landowners on an ad hoc basis since the early 2000s. Prior to the repeal of the Drainage Areas Act 1958 , most GHCMA drainage schemes were managed by an Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from council and landowners. Some drainage areas continued to be managed on this basis, but many advisory committees lapsed. While the drainage scheme may still be functioning, in many cases the involvement of local governments in rural drainage management has declined or lapsed. Only four schemes are currently rated (Yatchaw, Bunnugul, Goose Lagoon and Strathdownie), and each rating arrangement has been set up through the respective municipality.
12
A list of the drainage areas within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA area is provided in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the extent of knowledge on existing rural drainage systems within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA appears to be limited. Some additional information on these drainage areas for the Glenelg Hopkins CMA is provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report. For some of the information gaps, particularly the management status of the drains, information from the 1996 report ‘Rural Drainage in Victoria: A Scoping Study’ (Argent & Ewing, 1996) has been used to supplement the information supplied by the CMA. As indicated in Table 7, within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA area, rural drainage areas are either managed through ad hoc management by landholders or by local government. In the majority of cases, the condition of drainage assets within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA is generally unknown, however where the condition of assets is known, assets range from being in good condition to poor condition. Furthermore, no information on indicative capital and operation and maintenance needs was provided for any of the 45 identified drainage areas. Information relating to the physical aspects of the drainage systems was also not provided by the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. Drains within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA outfall to either rivers, creeks, lagoons or swamps. Table 7: Existing rural drainage schemes within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Local Heywood South Gazetted 1,184 Unknown Unknown Government Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area Managed Condah Swamp Included Gazetted (No.2) Drainage in Unknown 13 Unknown Medium Unknown Unknown Area Area Condah 1 Local Cashmore Gazetted 12,691 Unknown 196 Governme Poor Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area nt Managed Local Heathmere Gazetted 1,618 Unknown Unknown Governme Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area nt Managed Heywood Surrey Local Gazetted River Drainage 2,677 Unknown Unknown Governme Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Area nt Managed Local Narrawong Gazetted 363 Unknown Unknown Governme Medium Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area nt Managed Local Strathdownie Gazetted 51,989 Unknown 150 Governme Good Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area nt Managed Condah Swamp No Gazetted (No.1) Drainage 2,959 Unknown Unknown manageme Medium Unknown Unknown Area Area nt Lake Gorrie Gazetted Drainage Area 556 Unknown Unknown Unknown Medium Unknown Unknown Area (LGDA)
13
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Northern Eumeralla Gazetted 693 Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area (NEDA) Eumeralla Gazetted 3,388 Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area Moyne Drainage Gazetted 4,613 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Area Yambuk Drainage Gazetted 2,462 Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown Area Area Goose Lagoon Gazetted 423 Unknown 10 Unknown Good Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area Reedy No.1 & Gazetted No.2 Drainage 1,418 Unknown Unknown Unknown Good Unknown Unknown Area Area Local Merri Swamp Gazetted Governme 260 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area nt Managed Local Governme Lake Wangoom Gazetted nt and 88 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area Landholder co- managed Nullawarre Gazetted 14,913 Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area Mt Warrnambool Gazetted 677 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area Land Fresh Lake Gazetted 476 Unknown Unknown holder Medium Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area managed Land Stony Creek Gazetted 17,372 Unknown Unknown holder Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area managed U Land North Station Gazetted 1,780 Unknown 5 holder Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area managed Jellalabad Gazetted 1,873 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area Local Bunnugal Gazetted Governme 2,018 Unknown 5 Medium Unknown Unknown Drainage Area Area nt Managed Bookaar Drainage 773 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Pejark Drainage 827 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Area Elingamite-South 756 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown Eklin 935 Land holder Keayang Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown managed
14
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Local Mumbannar 9,628 Unknown Unknown Unknown Government Unknown Unknown Unknown Managed Yatchaw Drainage Local 38,260 Unknown Unknown Unknown Government Good Unknown Unknown Area Managed Mahoney Swamp 1,990 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Louth Swamp 703 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Medium Unknown Unknown Soldiers Swamp 735 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown Buangar-V 728 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Lake Repose 782 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (name uncertain) South of Heifer Swamp (name 534 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown uncertain) Corea (name 795 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown uncertain) North Boundary 306 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (name uncertain) Back Creek (name 2,442 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown uncertain) Warrayure Drainage Area 4,207 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (name uncertain) Hensley Park 326 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (name uncertain) Lake Bullrush 1,648 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (name uncertain) Werrangourt Ck 1,083 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (name uncertain) Gerrigerrup (name 3,277 Un-known Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor Unknown Unknown uncertain) Violet Ck (name 1,566 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown uncertain) Chalamba (name 3,298 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown uncertain) Total * 202,050 Unknown Unknown N/A N/A N/A Unknown Unknown
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. Note: Information that has been obtained from the Rural Drainage in Victoria: Scoping Study (Argent & Ewing, 1996). 9.5.2 Map of Glenelg Hopkins CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas The map included as Figure 5 was produced from digitising historic rural drainage scheme information which was provided by the Glenelg Hopkins CMA in PDF form from their 2004-2007 Strategy for Existing Rural Drainage. The scheme areas shown in the map provide an indication on where the drainage schemes are located within the Glenelg Hopkins CMA as well as showing their indicative relative size, asset condition status and scheme status (i.e. Gazetted or Non Gazetted) as tabulated in Table 7.
15
9.5.3 Areas in need of drainage The Glenelg Hopkins CMA did not provide any information relating to areas in need of rural drainage. Similarly, a review of existing literature did not indicate that areas within the CMA required new drainage systems to be installed.
16
17
9.6 Mallee CMA The Mallee CMA (MCMA) area covers some 39,300 km 2 representing about 17% of Victoria's total area. The Mallee CMA is bordered by the River Murray to the north from Swan Hill to well beyond Mildura along the meandering southern bank of the river. The western part of the catchment straddles the Victorian-South Australia border and then follows the boundary of the Victorian part of the Big Desert Wilderness Park and the Wyperfield National Park to the south until near Birchip. The Mallee catchment includes some of the River Murray system’s most iconic environmental sites, including the Hattah-Kulkyne National Park. The Mallee CMA area consists of 6 municipalities. Because of the low annual average rainfall in the area and the permeable nature of some of the soils, the Mallee CMA has few rural drainage related issues and thus has not applied its resources to establishing rural drainage or developing a Regional Strategy for Rural Drainage Management. The Mallee dryland area generally supports cropping enterprises. 9.6.1 Summary of existing rural drainage Overview During the data collection process, the Mallee CMA indicated that it did not know of any existing rural drainage schemes within its boundary. The saline ground water and soil profiles, along with the deep incisions of the River Murray in the landscape, have all contributed to the establishment of numerous irrigation and salinity related drainage schemes within the Mallee CMA. These schemes comprise tile drains, on farm drains which service horticultural activity with pressure or gravity fed pipe drains, open drains outfalling the water to evaporation basins or the River Murray, and groundwater interception schemes along the banks of the River Murray to mitigate the ingress of salt. However because these schemes are irrigation related, they are outside the scope and terms of reference for this report. The Mallee CMA holds the view that where levees are required to confine river flooding, local and rural drainage should be considered as part of the process of designing the infrastructure. Issues associated with decommissioning of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic Drainage System As highlighted in a case study included in the DSE Strategic Rural Drainage Initiative (DSE, 2012), the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline system is now fully constructed and in full operation. As such, the decommissioning of 18,000 km of former irrigation channels and associated structures is now underway. The full area now covered by the 9,150 km of Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic water supply pipelines is highlighted with a blue border on the State-wide rural drainage status map shown in Figure 21, and the boundary and portion of the area it covers is highlighted by a red line on the maps of the three CMAs that it supplies, the Mallee CMA (Figure 6), the North Central CMA (Figure 6) and the Wimmera CMA (Figure 9). The decommissioning of old stock and domestic water supply channels has led to an unexpected problem relating to rural drainage. The water supply channel systems across this region are typically of shallow excavation, with limited channel banks, and alignments that follow the contours of the land and cut across natural drainage lines. Prior to the installation
18
of the pipelines, the system was carefully managed by operational field staff and channel assets such as flow regulation structures. This ensured that rainfall runoff intercepted by the channels was managed and safely discharged. As part of the decommissioning of the scheme, all channel assets were removed to eliminate any future liability to the water supply authority. As a result of removing the assets and the associated management functions, in some areas drainage water now flows freely along these channels which in many cases across natural catchment boundaries. Drainage water now flows along the channels (rather than natural depressions) and spills at locations causing localised flooding and waterlogging of agricultural land. This in turn is fuelling conflict between neighbours and with Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water Corporation. This issue was highlighted during the high rainfall events that occurred across the region in late 2010 and early 2011. Hot spots where drainage intervention may be appropriate have been identified at 8 locations some of which are outside the Mallee CMA boundary. These areas include:- • Wal Wal to Murtoa • Dunmunkle Creek • Wooroonook Lakes (catchment and overflow) • Lalbert Creek • Tyrell Crrek/Marlbed • Drung-Riverside • Donald Main Channel (Lake Batyo Catyo to Corack) • Valcono – Traynors Lagoon area.
9.6.2 Map of Mallee CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas The map included as Figure 6 was produced from GIS data, but as Mallee has no existing rural drainage, it does not show any drainage areas. It does, however outline the area serviced by the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic water supply pipelines with the boundary highlighted by a red line Figure 21 (the State-wide map showing the status or rural drainage across Victoria) provides an indication of the spatial distribution of the decommissioned Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic water supply channel System, now serviced by the pipeline. In total this system covers some 20,000 km 2 or in excess of 9% of Victoria’s land area. The Mallee CMA includes about 7,000 km 2 or 35% of the system with approximately 45% being in the Wimmera CMA area and 20% being in North Central CMA area.
9.6.3 Areas in need of drainage The Mallee CMA did not provide any specific information relating to areas in need of rural drainage. Similarly, a review of existing literature did not indicate that specific areas within the Mallee CMA required new drainage systems except for works needed in the areas to address the drainage hot spots associated with the decommissioning of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic Water Supply system.
19
At present the community within the Mallee, Wimmera and North Central CMAs are more concerned with understanding the impacts of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic Water Supply system decommissioning and trying to return drainage to its natural state rather than build new systems. Some remedial action may be required however when the system is fully decommissioned and the local communities have a more complete understanding of the changed circumstances during periods of high rainfall and high runoff.
20
21
9.7 North Central CMA The North Central area covers some 30 000 km 2 which represents about 13% of Victoria's total area. The North Central catchment is bordered by the River Murray to the north from Swan Hill to Echuca, the Great Dividing Range in the south and the Mt Camel Range to the east. The catchments main waterways include the Campaspe, Loddon, Avoca and Avon-Richardson rivers. The North Central CMA area is covered by 14 municipalities. The NCCMA has a Regional Strategy for Rural Drainage Management which was developed in 1999. 9.7.1 Summary of existing rural drainage Introduction The North Central CMA developed a Regional Strategy for Rural Drainage Management in 1999. NCCMA has five existing drainage areas (approx. 235,000 ha), which used to make up the two former drainage schemes managed by the Bullock Creek Improvement Trust and the Avoca River Improvement Trust, which were owned by the municipalities. The CMA did not know under what legislation these schemes were established. Upon its formation, the NCCMA took over the roles and responsibilities of the Trusts and ownership of the drainage assets was transferred to them. Rural drainage is now the responsibility of the CMA’s Board and its Natural Resource Management Committee (implementation committee). In most cases, management appears to be undertaken by the landholders, excluding the Runnymede area which is managed by the Campaspe-Runnymede Landcare Group. The Bullock Creek Drainage System is now known as the Tragowel Plains drainage system, and is the largest of existing NCCMA drainage areas (180,000 ha). The NCCMA has indicated that the drainage assets within the Tragowel Plains Area are in poor condition but have not provided indicative figures for required capital and operation and maintenance funding needs. Within the North Central CMA, the CMA does not have the resources or adequate powers to enforce landowners to protect or maintain rural drains. For example, after the 2010-11 flood events, the CMA received a number of complaints from landowners regarding blockages to local drains which caused flooding of their land or prevented stormwater from draining away. The CMA/Council has the ability under the Planning and Environment Act to regulate new works in the floodplain/drainage areas; however this does not apply to historical works on private land. In addition, North Central CMA and Council do not have the resources to patrol areas to identify inappropriate works in the floodplain/drainage areas. The CMA has indicated that the role of CMAs, municipalities and Water Authorities in drainage management requires clarification from the State. The NCCMA experienced significant flood events in 2010-11. This demonstrated the benefits of existing infrastructure such as roads and railway lines in protecting some areas from flooding, however they also impeded the natural passage of local stormwater runoff in some areas thus exacerbating local impacts of inundation and soil waterlogging. As a result, the North Central CMA experienced a large number of drainage related complaints and believes that the responsibility of infrastructure owners in dealing with these types of issues also needs to be clarified. The North Central CMA has indicated that it supports the beneficiary pays system in managing rural drainage systems; however it has experienced difficulty in developing rating systems for existing drains. For example, resistance has been encountered when attempts
22
have been made to rate landowners benefiting from the rural drains in the Tragowel Plains drainage area. Based on the information provided by the North Central CMA, there is one known gazetted rural drainage scheme; namely the Long Swamp Drainage Area. This area was originally installed and gazetted as a drainage area in the mid 1960s. When it was originally established, the local Shire Council agreed to maintain the scheme. Part of the swamp is privately owned in partnership by three landholders with the remainder of the swamp owned by the Trust for Nature (TfN). The NCCMA has indicated that it is likely to submit a Biodiversity Fund bid in 2013-14 to purchase the remainder of the swamp on behalf of the TfN and place the swamp under a conservation covenant. In terms of environmental impacts to the Long Swamp Drainage Area, the drainage from the swamp itself has had a negative impact on the environmental condition of the swamp from an increase in exotic vegetation and changes in the hydrology of the wetland. The assets within the Long Swamp Drainage Area were assessed as being in medium condition by the NCCMA. As shown in Table 8, the extent of knowledge on existing rural drainage systems within the NCCMA appears to be limited. Some additional information on these drainage areas for the NCCMA is provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report.
Table 8: Existing rural drainage schemes within the North Central CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Owned by Trust for Long Swamp Gazetted 6,776 3 8 Nature and Medium Unknown Unknown Area Drainage Area three private parties. CSD - Shire Registered & RSDs are Land- Tragowel landholder 180,000 owner Poor Unknown Unknown 370 300-400 managed (but Plains Drains Group/ responsibility area of CMA). Community Surface Drains Landowner Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown in Bullock managed Creek Campaspe Runnymede Runnymede 50,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown landcare group Salisbury Plains Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Total * 236,776 >373 >400 N/A N/A N/A Unknown Unknown
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available.
23
9.7.2 Map of North Central CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas The map included as Figure 7 was produced using Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial data provided by the NCCMA and provides an indication of where existing rural drainage schemes are located and where areas requiring rural drainage are located across the North Central CMA area. The border of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic pipeline is also highlighted as a red line. The North Central CMA includes about 4,000 km 2 or 20% of the system with approximately 35% being in the Mallee CMA area and 45% being in the Mallee CMA area. Figure 7 also shows the indicative size, asset condition status and scheme status (i.e. Gazetted or Non Gazetted) as tabulated in Table 8. Rural drains within the NCCMA are mainly open earthen channels that service rural land and outfall to watercourses and rivers. These drains generally service rural agricultural land supporting cropping and grazing. 9.7.3 Areas in need of drainage The North Central CMA’s 1999 Regional Strategy for Rural Drainage Management identified ten priority areas for future rural drainage and outlined a management framework for future rural drainage management. Some limited work has been undertaken to implement this strategy, however the lack of funding has been the primary barrier to implementing the recommendations. Over the past 13 years a number of additional issues relating to rural drainage have been raised by the community. For this report, the North Central CMA has identified nine priority areas for future rural drainage management. These areas are outlined in Table 9, with some of these areas also shown on the NCCMA map in Figure 7. The NCCMA is the only CMA that provided specific details on areas which require drainage. Although areas for future rural drainage management have been nominated by the NCCMA, detail on these areas is limited and challenges are faced when determining how to prioritise where and how to develop new drains. The NCCMA indicated that this was due to a number of factors which have impacted on the continuity of reliable data and the retention of corporate and local knowledge. These factors included changes in land use, climatic conditions, significant changes in staffing and resourcing in government agencies.
Table 9: Areas within the NCCMA requiring rural drainage. Indicative Indicative Capital Area to be Proposed Drainage Area Comments landholders Funding serviced involved needs ($) (ha) Avon Richardson/Avoca Floodplain Nil. 291,426 Unknown Unknown (Richardson River/Callawadda)
Campaspe Floodplain downstream of Nil. 82,756 Unknown Unknown Rochester
Boort to Kerang - West of Loddon Nil. 99,891 Unknown Unknown Floodplain
Bradshaws Swamp / Homebush Creek** Nil. Unknown Unknown Unknown
Borung Plans** Nil. Unknown Unknown Unknown
24
Indicative Indicative Capital Area to be Proposed Drainage Area Comments landholders Funding serviced involved needs ($) (ha)
Tylden Landcare Group** Nil. Unknown Unknown Unknown
Nine Mile Creek / Marmal Creek** Nil. Unknown Unknown Unknown
Five Mile Creek / Woodend** Nil. Unknown Unknown Unknown
Coghills Creek / Learmonth and Nil. Unknown Unknown Unknown Smeaton Area**
Total * N/A 474,073 Unknown Unknown
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. ** Denotes an area requiring drainage for which no spatial data was received. These areas are therefore not represented on the map in Figure 7. At present the community within the Wimmera, Mallee North Central CMAs are more concerned with understanding the impacts of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic Water Supply system decommissioning and trying to return drainage to its natural state rather than build new systems. However some remedial action may be required when the system is fully decommissioned and the local communities are aware of the changed circumstances during periods of high rainfall and high runoff.
25
26
9.8 North East CMA The North East CMA area is bordered by the River Murray in the north, extending from Corryong in the west, to Wodonga, to just beyond Rutherglen in the east, then extending southward toward Wangaratta and into the northern part of Victoria’s Alpine range which includes the mountain townships of Myrtleford, Bright and Omeo. Significant river systems in the North East catchment include the Kiewa, Ovens and King rivers. The area also contains a number of important water supply storages namely Dartmouth Dam, Hume Dam, Lake William Hovel and Lake Buffalo. The North East CMA area is covered by 6 municipalities. The North East CMA covers an area of approximately 20,000 km² representing almost 9 % of Victoria's total land area. The NECMA has a Regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy developed in 1999 which is in need of updating. 9.8.1 Summary of existing rural drainage Black Dog Creek Drainage Area In 1999, when the NECMA’s Regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy was developed, there were two major rural drainage schemes within the North East catchment (NECMA, 1999. Pp 8). These were the Gooramadda Drainage Scheme and the Carlyle Drainage Scheme; some other smaller drains such as the Whim Creek system were also located close by. Historically, drainage within this area (the gazetted Black Dog Creek Drainage District) was managed by the Black Dog Creek Improvement Trust. This area is now called the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area and is managed by the NECMA. Within the NECMA region, rural drainage channel systems are predominantly open earthen and unfenced. From a management perspective, this results in the drainage channels becoming damaged from stock transit and grazing, which in turn has an impact on the quality of drain discharge entering receiving waterways during times of flow. Given the nature of earthen channel systems, weed control is also a significant drain maintenance issue within the NECMA. Asset condition, management status, scheme status and indicative capital funding needs as well as operation and maintenance costs were provided by the NECMA for drainage needs within the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area. This information which is summarised in Table 10, includes information on the Gooramadda, Carlyle, Black Dog Creek and Whim Creek drainage systems (all of which are located within the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area). However, there are a number of other drains within the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area such as the Colvin Brimin drain, Simpsons drain, Carmody’s drain and the Western Outfall drain, for which this information was not provided due to a lack of available data. The drainage schemes in Black Dog Creek sustained considerable damage in the Victorian floods of 2010 and 2011, and are in need of repair. The assets have therefore been classified as being in poor condition. Table 10 provides a summary of the current status of the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area. More comprehensive information on these historic and existing drainage schemes for the NECMA is provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report. Oxley Shire Drainage Area The Oxley Shire Drainage Area was gazetted as a rural drainage area under the Drainage Area Act 1958 in October of 1966. The drainage structures in the area are still in operation and managed by the CMA, however the gazetted status of the scheme was abolished in 1975 as the land was considered drained.
27
The dominant assets within the abolished Oxley Shire Drainage area are open earthen channels which have not received ongoing maintenance work. As a result some drainage management issues (such as weed infestation and low quality of drainage discharge water caused by stock degrading the earthen channel structures (pers. comm. NECMA)), and the assets have been classified as being in a predominantly medium condition, summarised in Table 10 and shown on the map in Figure 8. Because there will be some drainage assets in place, the system has been classified as being drained and in need of drainage.
Table 10: Existing rural drainage schemes within the North East CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M
CMA Black Dog Creek 140,000** Unknown Unknown Gazetted Poor $15,000 $3,000 Managed
Abolished as a More Non- Gazetted Oxley Shire 278,919 Unknown Very poor $55,000 Unknown than 200 Gazetted drainage area in 1975.
Part of One Mile Creek Oxley Unknow Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown System Shire n Area Part of Middle Creek Oxley Unknow Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Wangaratta Shire n Area
15 Mile (3 Mile) Part of from Greta – Oxley Unknow Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Laceby – Shire n Wangaratta Area
Part of Whim Creek Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Black Dog Medium $10,00 $2,000 Creek DS.
Part of Gooramadda Unknown Unknown Unknown Gazetted Black Dog Poor $50,000 $5,000 Creek DS.
Part of Carlyle Unknown Unknown Unknown Gazetted Black Dog Poor $10,000 $2,000 Creek DS.
Part of Carlyle West Unknown Unknown Unknown Gazetted Black Dog Poor $10,000 $2,000 Creek DS.
28
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M
Abolished 1966 and More Non- Greta-Laceby Unknown Unknown included in Medium $20,000 $3,000 than 200 Gazetted Shire of Oxley DA
More Total * 418,919 Unknown N/A N/A N/A $150,000 $18,000 than 400
* Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. ** Note: The total area serviced figure covers the entire Drainage Area, however not all parts of this scheme area are serviced by drainage.
9.8.1 Map of North East CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas The map shown in Figure 8 was produced from digitising historic rural drainage scheme information which was provided by the NECMA in PDF form. The scheme areas shown in the map provide an indication on where the drainage schemes are located within the Black Dog Creek Drainage District and to a lesser extent in the Oxley Shire area. It should be noted that these drainage schemes only cover a small part of the catchment. Figure 8 also shows the indicative size, asset condition status and scheme status (i.e. Gazetted or Non Gazetted) as tabulated in Table 10. Although the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area is well short of being fully serviced by surface drains, there are some ad hoc privately managed schemes with in the areas shown as undrained within the Black Dog Creek Drainage Area in Figure 8. Similarly in the Oxley shire area the old drainage system which is in a state of disrepair did not service the whole area within the abandoned previously gazetted area. As indicated above, all of the drains comprise open earthen channels and service relatively flat land which is subject to upper catchment runoff. The land services rural land that is generally used for grazing and cropping related enterprises. 9.8.2 Areas in need of drainage The North East CMA indicated (Pers.Comm.) that their preference was to not install new drainage if possible, and in the event that any new drainage might be required, strict conditions would need to be met.
29
30
9.9 Port Phillip and Western Port CMA The Port Phillip and Westernport CMA area covers some 13,000 km 2 representing about 5.6 % of Victoria's total land area. This review is only concerned with the rural area of the catchment which also encompasses large portions of the urbanised and irrigated rural areas in the Yarra, Dandenong and Macedon ranges as well as the Mornington and Bellarine Peninsulas. Rural endeavours in the dryland area of this catchment include grazing, market gardens and hobby farming on Melbourne’s urban fringe. 9.9.1 Summary of existing rural drainage and areas in need of Rural Drainage Rural drainage within the PPWPCMA area is managed by Melbourne Water. Due to staff limitations and their own submission deadline, no rural drainage information was provided by Melbourne Water on behalf of PPWPCMA. The Balliang drainage area is located within the Municipality of the Moorabool and was therefore included in the Corangamite CMA’s response. The area is however located within the PPWPCMA and has therefore been included in Table 11 under this section of the report. The area serviced by Balliang is approximately 3,000 ha. This drainage system has not been maintained for 20 years, as Moorabool Shire Council was not aware it had management responsibility for the scheme until the Office of Local Government brought it to their attention. Information on the Koo Wee Rup Swamp, which has an area of approximately 40,000 ha, has largely been obtained through the Melbourne Water website, communication with Melbourne Water personnel and extracted from PDF maps of the drainage area. The area is managed and rated by Melbourne Water, and a Koo Wee Rup Committee comprising of landholders in the area serves in an advisory capacity, providing direction on maintenance and works in the area. Table 11 Existing rural drainage schemes within the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M No maintenance for 20 years. Council believes that is has management Balliang 3,000 Unknow responsibility. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ** n Brought to its attention by Office of Local Government. Little known of current status. Koo Wee Water Authority Gazetted Rup 40,000 500 Unknown Managed (Melbourne Good Unknown Unknown Area Swamp Water) Total * 43,000 > 500 Unknown N/A N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown * Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. **Note: Information was provided by CCMA.
31
9.9.2 Map of Port Phillip & Western Port CMA –Rural Drainage areas The map shown in Figure 9 below was produced to indicate the approximate location and area of the Balliang drainage system, based on advice from Moorabool Shire Council (Pers. Comm.), as this was the best available information at the time. The area of the Koo Wee Rup Swamp has been digitized from a PDF map of the Koo Wee Rup – Longwarry Flood Protection District, and should only be considered an indicative guide to the location and size of the drainage network, rather than exact. The scheme areas shown in the map below provide an indication of the spatial distribution of existing drainage schemes within the East Gippsland CMA.
9.9.3 Areas in need of drainage As part of the data collection process and subsequent communication, there has been no indication from PPWPCMA, CCMA, Melbourne Water or Moorabool Shire Council of any new significant developments in rural drainage. Similarly, a review of existing literature did not identify additional areas within the PPWPCMA that require rural drainage.
32
33
9.10 Wimmera CMA The Wimmera CMA area lies within western Victoria and covers some 30 000 km 2 representing about 13% of Victoria's total area. The Wimmera CMA straddles the Victoria-South Australian border on its western boundary and includes the Little Desert National Park. From the Victoria-South Australian border in the south, the CMA boundary extends inland toward Edenhope across to the northern Grampians in the east to Stawell. Heading north, the boundary extends to just beyond Warracknabeal and is bordered in the north to include Lake Hindmarsh and Lake Albacutya Park. The Wimmera CMA has a Rural Drainage Strategy which was developed in 2001. The strategy is in need of updating. The Wimmera CMA area is covered by 8 municipalities. The Wimmera CMA dryland area includes some rich and fertile soils and generally supports cropping and grazing enterprises. 9.10.1 Summary of existing rural drainage During the data collection process, the Wimmera CMA did not provide any specific rural drainage scheme information in the data collection spreadsheet but indicated that within the Wimmera CMA region there are a number of informal drainage schemes which are constructed but are not formally administered and operated by an authority. Follow up communication with WCMA and analysis of a map of ‘drainage issues’ in Appendix A of the Wimmera Rural Drainage Strategy provided some further information on individual schemes. These areas are shown in the Wimmera CMA rural drainage map in Figure 10. As tabulated in Table 12, the majority of these informal schemes are located in the West Wimmera Shire, including some large south-north flowing drainage systems. These include drainage works into Lake Charlegrark from Ullswater, and into Lake Yallukar from Charam as well as Maryvale Swamp from the south. There is also drainage in place to divert water into Lake Wallace and other locations to reduce waterlogging and make land available for farming and to divert additional water into wetlands with recreational values. In all cases within the Wimmera CMA region, the ongoing management of these drainage schemes is unclear. Issues relating to drainage within the Wimmera region include loss of wetlands through draining, and ongoing calls from landholders to drain additional wetlands to help fill recreational lakes that haven’t received adequate rainfall to completely fill them following the break of the drought. Land use change from grazing to cropping has been occurring across the south west Wimmera for a few years and there are also instances where farmers have drained their land to enable cultivation, meaning that issues related to changing the natural drainage characteristics of the area arise when moving water onto neighbouring properties. These issues also include the loss of localised wetlands which are importing to birdlife in the area.
34
Table 12: Existing rural drainage schemes within the Wimmera CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Goroke 19,921 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Koijak -Yalla 29,452 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Creek Lake 3,968 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Bringalbert Lake 15,277 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Charlegrark Lake Wallace 4,251 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Lake Yallukar 8,591 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Maryvale 6,278 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Swamp Neuarpur - 17,045 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Minimay Total * 104,783 Unknown Unknown N/A N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown * Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available. Additionally, similar to what is occurring in the Mallee CMA area, in the short to medium term, the impact of decommissioning the Wimmera Mallee Stock and Domestic Drainage System is creating some unforseen drainage issues. The community within this area wants to be kept informed and understand what impacts this will have on the effectiveness of drainage so they can plan for future drainage needs, recognising that the channels often operated as levees and/ or drains in times of heavy rainfall or flood. More information on issues surrounding the Wimmera Mallee Stock and Domestic Drainage System is highlighted in Section 7.6.1 of this report. 9.10.2 Map of Wimmera CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas Wimmera CMA was only able to provide very minimal spatial data specific to drainage. Wimmera CMA does not have formally gazetted rural drainage areas, however Figure 10 provides an overview of the spatial distribution of existing landowner managed rural drainage systems across the catchment. The map shown in Figure 10 is based on the digitization of PDF map included in the Wimmera CMA’s Rural Drainage Strategy which was developed in 2001, and personal communication with staff at the WCMA. The locations and areas provided are approximate, and data used with caution. The border of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic pipeline is also highlighted as a red line. 9.10.3 Areas in need of drainage The Wimmera CMA did not provide any information relating to areas in need of rural drainage. Similarly, a review of existing literature did not indicate that particular areas within the Wimmera CMA required new drainage systems to be installed except those areas where there is a need to address the drainage hot spots associated with the decommissioning of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic Water Supply system.
35
The Wimmera CMA includes about 8,000 km 2 or 45% of the system with approximately 35% being in the Mallee CMA area and 20% being in North Central CMA area. At present the community within the Wimmera, North Central and Mallee CMAs are more concerned with understanding the impacts of the Wimmera-Mallee Stock and Domestic Water Supply system decommissioning and trying to return drainage to its natural state rather than build new systems. Once the local communities are aware of the changed circumstances particularly during periods of high rainfall and high runoff, some remedial action may be required.
36
37
9.11 West Gippsland CMA The West Gippsland CMA area covers the most south-western part of Victoria’s Alpine region stretching from Noojee then south along the coastline from Wonthaggi to Wilsons Promontory in the south across to Lake Wellington near Sale and extending north through the area between Maffra and Bairnsdale back into Victoria’s Alpine region. The West Gippsland CMA area is covered by 6 municipalities. The CMA covers an area of approximately 17,000 km² which equates to almost 8 % of Victoria's total area. The WGCMA Rural Drainage Management Strategy was developed in 1999. 9.11.1 Summary of existing rural drainage The West Gippsland CMA has 24 gazetted rural drainage areas. Of these 24 drainage areas only one has up to date information regarding capital and operation and maintenance funding requirements; the Moe River Drainage Area. WGCMA drainage assets also include coastal flats and sea walls, which are usually managed by the municipalities. For example, South Gippsland Shire Council manages 25 km of seawalls around the shore of Corner Inlet (2012). Victoria has a total of approximately 1,300 km of seawalls installed along the State’s coastline. Seawalls have not been included in this report, as they fall outside the definition of rural drainage as it relates to the Inquiry. During the data collection process and dialogue with West Gippsland CMA staff, the main issue raised relating to rural drainage for residents within the Moe River Drainage Area was the funding of capital works and operation and maintenance costs. According to the West Gippsland CMA, landholders within the Moe River Drainage Area are opposed to a tariff structure that doesn’t reflect the level of service provided to each landholder in the catchment. Some landholders also believe that the collection of a drainage tariff does not provide good value for money. Furthermore, issues have arisen within the WGCMA area where there is a diversity of land use types which impact the service needs of drainage from property to property. As such, many landholders believe that they are better off undertaking their own operation and maintenance works so that service needs can be tailored to suit their individual requirements. It is also believed by some landholders that historically, the management of rural drainage within the Moe River Drainage Area has been poor and has favoured certain benefiting landholders over others. It is also believed that the amalgamation of shire councils within the WGCMA during the 1990’s resulted in well managed schemes becoming defunct and under resourced. Estimating capital and operation and maintenance costs for rural drainage within the WGCMA area is difficult due to the very limited data available with information being provided only for the Moe River Drainage Area where the capital and annual operation and maintenance costs are $200,000 and $50,000 respectively. Table 13 below provides a summary of the current status of existing rural drainage schemes within the West Gippsland CMA area. Additional information on these existing drainage schemes are provided in the Rural Drainage State wide summary table included in Appendix A of this report.
38
Table 13: Existing rural drainage schemes within the West Gippsland CMA. Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Moe River Managed by Baw Baw Shire, in Drainage Flats consultation 1,2 & 3 with an advisory 5,140 Unknown 211 Gazetted Poor $200,000 $50,000 (formerly body. Some Trafalgar adhoc maintenance by Meadows) landholders Managed by WGCMA through its waterway Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Upper Latrobe 202 Gazetted program. Individual landholders maintain assets. CMA continue to undertake river health Latrobe 1, 2 & 3 works through 12,000 Unknown Unknown Gazetted waterways Unknown Unknown Unknown (LAT) program. Individual landholders maintain assets. CMA continue to undertake river health Area works through inclu. waterways Latrobe 1, 2 & 3 under the program. majority Unknown Unknown Gazetted Unknown Unknown Unknown (WEL) Individual Municipal landholders Council maintain assets. (LAT) Some drainage issues have occurred recently. Unknown – drainage issues Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Grip 224 Gazetted have occurred recently. Landholders Black Swamp 890 Unknown Unknown Gazetted manage the Unknown Unknown Unknown drainage area. No management arrangements at present. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Hedley (SGI) 202 Gazetted Drainage issues have occurred recently. No management arrangements at present. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Hedley (WEL) 2,226 Gazetted Drainage issues have occurred recently.
39
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Unknown but known to require Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Shady Creek 1,255 Gazetted minimal management. Unknown – Potentially managed by South Gippsland Corner Inlet 4,766 Unknown Unknown Gazetted Shire. CMA has Unknown Unknown Unknown had little to no contact with landholders in recent years. Managed by landholders. CMA has had Yanakie 1,140 Unknown Unknown Gazetted little to no Unknown Unknown Unknown contact with landholders in recent years. Sandy Point 416 Unknown Unknown Gazetted Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Managed by landholders. CMA has had little to no contact with Waratah 1,227 Unknown Unknown Gazetted landholders in Unknown Unknown Unknown recent years. Drainage issues have occurred recently. Landholders manage Middle & drainage asset 10,000 Unknown Unknown Gazetted maintenance. Unknown Unknown Unknown Lower Tarwin Drainage issues have occurred recently. Landholder managed. CMA has had little to no contact with Pound Creek 3,000 Unknown Unknown Gazetted landholders in Unknown Unknown Unknown recent years. Drainage issues have occurred recently. Heart Morass Unknown Unknown Unknown Gazetted Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Managed through CMA waterways Holey Plains 931 Unknown Unknown Gazetted program. Unknown Unknown Unknown Drainage issues have occurred recently.
40
Funding needs ($)
Drainage Area Area Area serviced (ha) Lengthof drain(s)(km) No.of landowners involved Statusof Scheme Management Status Asset condition Capital O&M Landholders are against a formal drainage scheme. A small group of landholders have agreed to pay for Kilmany Park 1 the maintenance 6,968 Unknown Unknown Gazetted of the Kilmany Unknown Unknown Unknown & 2 levee pump when required. CMA is providing technical and administrative support. Lower Powlett 3,397 Unknown Unknown Gazetted Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Total * 53,984 Unknown 211 N/A N/A N/A $200,000 $50,000 * Note: Total figures only include data that has been provided. Does not incorporate information for drainage areas where information is not readily available.
9.11.2 Map of West Gippsland CMA – Existing and potential rural drainage areas Figure 11 was produced from digitising historic rural drainage design information which was provided by the WGCMA in PDF form. The scheme areas shown in the map below provide an indication on where existing drainage schemes within the West Gippsland CMA are located. Figure 11 also shows the indicative size, asset condition stats and scheme status (i.e. Gazetted or Non Gazetted) as tabulated in Table 13. The rural drains within the West Gippsland CMA area are open earthen drains which service rural agricultural land and outfall to rivers, creeks, lakes and estuaries. Outfall points include Corner Inlet which is a Ramsar listed site because of its diverse wetlands that support a range of plants and animals including a high percentage of Victoria’s waterbirds. 9.11.3 Areas in need of drainage As part of the data collection process and subsequent communication with the WGCMA, there has been no indication from the WGCMA (and municipalities within the WGCMA area) of the need for any new significant developments in rural drainage. Similarly, a review of the West Gippsland CMA’s 1999 Regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy did not identify any additional areas within the WGCMA that require rural drainage.
41
42
9.12 References Argent, R.M. & Ewing, S.A. 1996, Rural Drainage in Victoria: Scoping Study , Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Goulburn-Broken Catchment Management Authority, 2002, Best Practice Principles and Standards for Drainage in Dryland Catchments , SMEC, Goulburn-Broken Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton. Goulburn-Broken Catchment Management Authority, 2002a, Best Practice Principles and Standards for Drainage in Dryland Catchments – Background Report , SMEC, Goulburn-Broken Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton. Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, 2003, 2004-2007 Strategy for Existing Rural Drainage Areas, Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, Hamilton. North Central Catchment Management Authority, 1999, Regional Strategy for Rural Drainage Management, ID&A Pty. Ltd. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Wangaratta. North East Catchment Management Authority, 1999, Regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy , ID&A, North East Catchment Management Authority, Wodonga. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority, 1999, Regional Rural Drainage Management Strategy , Sinclair Knight Mertz, West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority, Traralgon. Wimmera Catchment Management Authority, 1998, Rural Drainage Strategy, Wimmera Catchment Management Authority, Horsham.
43
Rural Drainage Information Provided by each CMA As At December 2012 (Blank cells mean no information was provided) APPENDIX A
Q E1. E2a. E2b. E2c. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7a. E7b. E8a. E8b. E9a. E9b. E10. E11. E12. E13a. E13b. E14a. E15a. E16a.
Additional Capital Municipal funding need to Indicative annual Drainage Scheme Length of Estimate If Other Catchment Council Receiving Dominant Assets Physical restore drainage operation and Main asset Environmental features Environmental features Area Designated Drainage Number Location (Nearest Area serviced Drains in Number of Number of Status of Legislative Arrangements in (Please specify if an alternative Number of Area/length number of People from Area Management waterway/body Management Status Rating Status Forming Rural Condition of system to good maintenance funding serviced in adversely impacted by positively impacted by Area /person Area length Areea/km No. Network Name (Designated by Town or Feature) (ha) Scheme Landowners Ladholders Scheme Place or management status People (ha/km) people data /scheme Authority name Drainage System Assets condition/level of required catchment drainage system drainage system (ha) CMA) (km) Unknown elaboration or variation applies) service ($) ($)
Formerly managed by a Committee of Management set Committee of Management across Registered up under s86 of the LGA, and Tirrengower 1 & Tirrengower 2 Bungador & Swan Lake Corangamite via Local Government rated by LG under Open earthen 1 Tirrengower 1 & 2 C COL Nil 9,004 162.5 163 Landowner rates raised under s163 of the DAs. Shire now intending (i) to Medium Rural land 9,004 9,004 163 55 9,004 163 55 28 163 9,004 55 Marsh Pirron Yallock Creek Managed s163 of the LGA channels Group/area LGA 'special rates and services', levy a 'special charge' towards and is reviewed every ten years funding of works and (ii) to review management structure.
Adhoc Has a Committee of Management. Open earthen 2 Aire River C COL Nil Glenaire Aire River 202 30 21 landowner Landowner managed Landowners in DA are rated by Separately rated Poor Rural land 202 202 21 10 202 30 7 2 21 202 7 channels group/area Shire on a per ha. basis.
Not aware of this being a declared DA but aware of a pipeline off SE side which discharges into a local Adhoc creek. Shire currently has no 3 Lake Modewarre C SUR Nil Modewarre Thompson Creek 340 0.77 7 landowner responsibility for its management. 340 340 7 49 340 1 442 1 7 340 442 group/area Pipeline's gates were welded shut last year, unbeknown to Shire. Shire may review the scheme's future.
LCDS was established under Rural land and 5 the provisions of the River No. Regulators Improvement Act 1948. The and 10 No. Corangamite CMA took over Lough Calvert Drainage Colac, Beeac & Barwon River via Gazetted Not rated but CMA Open earthen private bridges Receiving waters and salinity 4 C COL Nil 2,820 33.5 103 the LCDS by Ministerial CMA Managed Medium $575,000 $40,000 2,820 2,820 103 27 2,820 34 84 9 103 2,820 84 Scheme Ricketts Marsh Birregurra Creek Area funded channels now some 55 yrs in Barwon River Order from the Otway old and will Regional Water Authority on require renewing 1/7/1997 under Section soon 98(2) of the Water Act 1989
WYDS was established under the provisions of the River Improvement and Drainage Environmental assets within Act 1958 following a the drain catchment, and Rural land and 3 Parliamentary Public Works Cundare Pool created by No. Regulators Committee Inquiry in 1956. scheme, now v. good habitat and 35 No. The Corangamite CMA took refuge for birds - h/ever also Woady Yaloak Diversion Cressy, Mt Hesse & Barwon River via Gazetted Not rated but CMA Open earthen private bridges Receiving waters and salinity 5 C COL Nil 1,790 38 178 over the management of the CMA Managed Medium $1,795,000 $80,000 impact to Ramsar Lake 1,790 1,790 178 10 1,790 38 47 6 178 1,790 47 Scheme Inverleigh Warrnambine Creek Area funded channels now some 50 in Barwon River WYDS by Ministerial Order Corangamite through years old and will from Southern Rural Water diversion of flows from Lake - require renewing to the Corangamite CMA on subject to actions under soon. 19/8/1999 under Section 2011 Western Region 98(2) of the Water Act 1989. Sustainable Water Strategy A copy of the gazette is attached.
Adhoc Assets managed by landowners Snowy Brodribb Drainage Snowy River and Other (please specify Not rated and not Open earthen Significant floodplain 6 EG EGI Orbost, Marlo 11,000 ~110 5 - 24 5 - 24 landowner but CMA investigating options to Unknown No idea No idea Rural land 11,000 11,000 25 440 11,000 110 100 34 5 - 24 10,000 District (5 distinct zones) Brodribb River in adjacent cell) funded channels wetlands adjacent to estuary group/area improve floodplain connectivity
Other (please Between Tambo Uper specify in Other (please specify Not rated and not Open earthen Environmental assets within 7 Lower Tambo EG EGI Tambo River 25 ~1.5 5 - 24 5 - 24 Unknown Unknown Unknown No idea No idea Rural land 25 25 15 2 25 15 2 1 5 - 24 25 and Swan Reach adjacent in adjacent cell) funded channels the drain catchment column)
Suspect its an area 8 Currawa GB GSH No between the Broken Broken River 2,927 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2,927 9 Unknown 2,927 River and Dookie Hill 5 km north west of 9 Jubilee Swamp GB GSH No Honelysuckle Creek 6,661 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 6,661 21 Unknown 6,661 Baddaginnie Large area from Caniambo/Gowangar die/Tamleugh - see 10 Caniambo GB GSH No History of Sheep Pen Creek 13,052 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 13,052 40 Unknown 13,052 development of neighbouring three districts (1985)
Upper Major Creek Community surface drain area north of Casey's constructed in late 1970s. 11 Little Major Creek GB MOI No Weir (Broken River) - Broken Creek 1,040 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Landowners have never been 1,040 3 Unknown 1,040 Unsure (Check with rated but Shire now considering Moira Shire) levying a 'special charge'.
Current management not known at the Shire, though old maps do 3 km north of exist on the files. DNRE is Possibly Goulburn 12 Reedy Lake GB STR No Baileston East (Nth of 1,295 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown responsible for management of 1,295 4 Unknown 1,295 River Nagambie) the lake as a conservation reserve but is not aware of any drainage scheme per se .
Heywood South Drainage West of Heywood Gazetted Local government 13 GH GLE Nil Fitzroy River 1,184 Unknown Unknown 1,184 4 Unknown 1,184 Area township Area managed Condah Swamp (No.2) Included in Gazetted 14 GH GLE Nil Lake Condah 13 unknown Medium 13 Drainage Area Condah 1 Area Gorae West- Gazetted Local government 15 Cashmore Drainage Area GH GLE Nil Surrey River 12,691 196 Poor 12,691 12,691 196 65 39 196 12,691 Cashmore area Area managed alongside the Surrey Gazetted Local government 16 Heathmere Drainage Area GH GLE Nil Surrey River 1,618 Unknown Unknown 1,618 5 Unknown 1,618 River Area managed West of Princes Hwy, Heywood Surrey River Gazetted Local government 17 GH GLE Nil North of Coffey's Surrey River 2,677 Unknown Unknown 2,677 8 Unknown 2,677 Drainage Area (not mapped) Area managed Lane Gazetted Local Government 18 Narrawong Drainage Area GH GLE Nil 363 Unknown Medium 363 1 Unknown 363 Area Managed Gazetted Local Government LG do not own assets but provide 19 Strathdownie Drainage Area GH GLE Nil Strathdownie Glenelg River 51,989 150 Yes Good 51,989 51,989 150 347 161 150 51,989 Area Managed decision making and admin Condah Swamp (No.1) North west of Gazetted 20 GH MOY Nil Lake Condah 2,959 Unknown No management Medium 2,959 9 Unknown 2,959 Drainage Area Macarthur Area Between Mt Eccles National Park on the Lake Gorrie Drainage Area Gazetted 21 GH MOY Nil west and the Eumeralla River 556 Unknown Unknown Medium 556 2 Unknown 556 (LGDA) (not mapped) Area Eumeralla River on the east. Northern Eumeralla Drainage Gazetted 22 GH MOY Nil South of Macarthur Eumeralla River 693 Unknown Unknown Poor 693 2 Unknown 693 Area (NEDA) (not mapped) Area Bessiebelle-south of Gazetted 23 Eumeralla Drainage Area GH MOY Nil Eumeralla River 3,388 Unknown Unknown Poor 3,388 10 Unknown 3,388 Macarthur Area Willatook/Tarrone- Moyne River with 5 Gazetted 24 Moyne Drainage Area GH MOY Nil south west of creeks as secondary 4,613 Unknown Unknown Unknown 4,613 14 Unknown 4,613 Area Hawksdale drains. Yambuk, west and Gazetted 25 Yambuk Drainage Area GH WAR Nil Yambuk Lake 2,462 Unknown Unknown Poor 2,462 8 Unknown 2,462 north of Port Fairy Area West of Port Fairy, north & east of Goose Gazetted Local Government 26 Goose Lagoon Drainage Area GH MOY Nil Goose Lagoon 423 10 Yes Good 423 423 10 42 1 10 423 Lagoon State Wildlife Area Managed Reserve. Reedy No.1 & No.2 Drainage Gazetted 27 GH MOY Nil Port Fairy Moyne River 1,418 Unknown Unknown Good 1,418 4 Unknown 1,418 Area Area Gazetted Local Government 28 Merri Swamp Drainage Area GH WAR Nil Dennington Merri River 260 Unknown Unknown 260 Unknown 260 Area Managed Local South of Wangoom- Gazetted 29 Lake Wangoom Drainage Area GH WAR Nil Hopkins River 88 Unknown Government/land Unknown 88 Unknown 88 East of Warrnambool Area holder managed
Page A1 of A5 Rural Drainage Information Provided by each CMA As At December 2012 (Blank cells mean no information was provided) APPENDIX A
Q E1. E2a. E2b. E2c. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7a. E7b. E8a. E8b. E9a. E9b. E10. E11. E12. E13a. E13b. E14a. E15a. E16a.
Additional Capital Municipal funding need to Indicative annual Drainage Scheme Length of Estimate If Other Catchment Council Receiving Dominant Assets Physical restore drainage operation and Main asset Environmental features Environmental features Area Designated Drainage Number Location (Nearest Area serviced Drains in Number of Number of Status of Legislative Arrangements in (Please specify if an alternative Number of Area/length number of People from Area Management waterway/body Management Status Rating Status Forming Rural Condition of system to good maintenance funding serviced in adversely impacted by positively impacted by Area /person Area length Areea/km No. Network Name (Designated by Town or Feature) (ha) Scheme Landowners Ladholders Scheme Place or management status People (ha/km) people data /scheme Authority name Drainage System Assets condition/level of required catchment drainage system drainage system (ha) CMA) (km) Unknown elaboration or variation applies) service ($) ($) 3 outlets exist: Hopkins River downstream of Allansford, Buckley's WAR Creek near the Nullawarre-south east Gazetted 30 Nullawarre Drainage Area GH MOY Nil bottom of the 14,913 Unknown Unknown Poor 14,913 46 Unknown 14,913 of Warrnambool Area CRA drainage area, Whisky Creek, then to Curdies River upstream from Curdievale. Mt Warrnambool Drainage Panmure-East of via Mt Emu Creek to Gazetted 31 GH WAR Nil 677 Unknown Unknown Unknown 677 2 Unknown 677 Area Warrnambool Hopkins River. Area Near Ellerslie, south Gazetted Land holder 32 Fresh Lake Drainage Area GH MOY Nil Hopkins River 476 Unknown Medium 476 1 Unknown 476 west of Mortlake. Area managed Hopkins River Land holder approximately 25km Gazetted managed (Stony 33 Stony Creek Drainage Area GH MOY Nil Mortlake 17,372 Unknown Unknown 17,372 54 Unknown 17,372 downstream of Area Creek Drainage Ellerslie. Association Inc.) Gazetted Land holder 34 North Station Drainage Area GH MOY Nil North of Mortlake Blind Creek 1,780 5 Unknown 1,780 1,780 5 356 6 5 1,780 Area managed Gazetted 35 Jellalabad Drainage Area GH MOY Nil West of Darlington Two Mile Creek 1,873 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1,873 6 Unknown 1,873 Area Gazetted Local Government 36 Bunnugal Drainage Area GH ARA Nil Heifer Swamp area Wannon River 2,018 5 Yes Medium 2,018 2,018 5 404 6 5 2,018 Area Managed Unknown 37 Bookaar Drainage Area GH CRA Nil 733 Unknown Non- Unknown Unknown 733 2 Unknown 733 Gazetted 38 Pejark Drainage Area GH CRA Nil 827 Unknown Unknown unknown Unknown 827 3 Unknown 827 Unknown 39 Elingamite-South Eklin GH CRA Nil 756 Unknown Unknown Poor 756 2 Unknown 756
Unknown Land holder 40 Keayang (not mapped) GH CRA Nil 935 Unknown Unknown 935 3 Unknown 935 managed Local Government 41 Mumbannar GH GLE Nil 9,628 Unknown Unknown Unknown 9,628 30 Unknown 9,628 Managed Unknown West of Penshurst, Local Government LG do not own assets but provide 42 Yatchaw Drainage Area GH SGR Nil Buckleys Swamp 38,260 Unknown Yes Good 38,260 118 Unknown 38,260 south of Tarrington. Managed decision making and admin Unknown Via Bryants Swamp to 43 Mahoney Swamp GH SGR Nil 1,990 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1,990 6 Unknown 1,990 Wannon River.
44 Louth Swamp GH SGR Nil West of Byaduk. Lake Condah 703 Unknown Unknown Unknown Medium 703 2 Unknown 703 45 Soldiers Swamp GH SGR Nil South of Tarrington Muddy Ck 735 Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor 735 2 Unknown 735 46 Buangar-V GH ARA Nil 728 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 728 2 Unknown 728 Unknown South west of Heifer Swamp and 47 Lake Repose (name uncertain) GH SGR Nil 782 Unknown Unknown Unknown 782 2 Unknown 782 Glenthompson then to Wannon River South of Heifer Swamp (name West of Heifer Swamp then to Unknown 48 GH Ararat Nil 534 Unknown Unknown Unknown 534 2 Unknown 534 uncertain) Glenthompson Wannon River South east of Unknown Bushy Ck and then to 49 Corea (name uncertain) GH SGR Nil Dunkeld. East of 795 Unknown Unknown Unknown 795 2 Unknown 795 Hopkins River Corea Lane North east of Unknown North Boundary (name 50 GH SGR Nil Dunkeld, south of Wannon River 306 Unknown Unknown Unknown 306 1 Unknown 306 uncertain) North Boundary Rd Unknown 51 Back Creek (name uncertain) GH SGR Nil West of Dunkeld Wannon River 2,442 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2,442 8 Unknown 2,442 Warrayure Drainage Area North of Lake Unknown 52 GH SGR Nil Grange Burn 4,207 Unknown Unknown Unknown 4,207 13 Unknown 4,207 (name uncertain) Linlithgow. Hensley Park (name Unknown 53 GH SGR Nil North of Hamilton Riley's Ck 326 Unknown Unknown Unknown 326 1 Unknown 326 uncertain) Unknown Lake Bullrush then Lake Bullrush (name 54 GH SGR Nil North of Penshurst into Soldiers Swamp 1,648 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1,648 5 Unknown 1,648 uncertain) Drainage Area. Unknown Werrangourt Ck (name South of Tarrington, 55 GH SGR Nil Werrangourt Ck 1,083 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1,083 3 Unknown 1,083 uncertain) South of Mt Napier. Unknown 56 Gerrigerrup (name uncertain) GH SGR Nil South of Mt Napier Breakfast Ck 3,277 Unknown Unknown Poor 3,277 10 Unknown 3,277 Unknown 57 Violet Ck (name uncertain) GH SGR Nil South of Hamilton Violet Ck 1,566 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1,566 5 Unknown 1,566
Chalamba Swamp (name North East of Unknown 58 GH SGR Nil Miakite Ck 3,298 Unknown Unknown Unknown 3,298 10 Unknown 3,298 uncertain) Branxholme
Original scheme installed in mid 1960s. When originally established, Shire agreed to maintain the scheme. Shire last did maintenance three years ago. The scheme still functions as Long Swamp drainage had a intended. Some scouring reported negative impact on the by landholders. Part of the swamp Tullaroop Reservoir Gazetted Other (please specify Not rated and not Open earthen environmental asset of the 59 Long Swamp Drainage Area NC CEN Nil Carisbrook 6,776 3 8 Less than 5 is in private ownership (3 Medium Rural land Receiving waters 6,776 6,776 8 847 21 8 6,776 2,259 on Tullaroop Creek Area in adjacent cell) funded channels swamp itself, e.g. increased landholders) and the remainder exotic vegetation, change in has been purchased by the Trust wetland hydrology for Nature (TfN). The CMA is likely to submit a Biodiversity Fund bid to purchase the remainder of the swamp on behalf of TfN and place under conservation covenant in 2013-14.
CSD - Shire & RSDs are landholder managed (but responsibility of CMA). Bullock Creek Improvement Trust became an asset of CMA in July 1997. Since 1995 no Govt funding has been invested in maintenance of Registered CMA couldn't advise, but regional drains. Through the More than Other (please specify Open earthen 60 Tragowel Plains Drains NC LOD Nil Pyramid Hill Bullock Creek 180,000 370 300-400 Landowner existence of NRMC board NDRRA program the CMA was Poor Rural land nil 180,000 180,000 350 514 180,000 370 486 557 300-400 180,000 200 in adjacent cell) channels Group/area suggests may s19J of CaLP) successful in securing $434,000 for repairs to the BCIT (which includes 172km of drainage repairs). 3. Regional drains are effectively managed by the Board and Natural Resource Management Committee (Implementation Committee).
Community Surface Drains in More than 61 NC LOD Nil Pyramid Hill Bullock Creek Landowner managed Unknown Rural land 0 Bullock Creek (not mapped) 200
Campaspe River, Mt Other (please specify Campaspe Runnymede landcare 62 Runnymede NC CAM Nil Runnymede 50,000 Unknown Unknown Rural land 50,000 155 0 Pleasant Ck in adjacent cell) group
Campaspe River, Mt Other (please specify 63 Salisbury Plains (not mapped) NC CAM Nil Salisbury West Unknown Unknown Rural land 0 Pleasant Ck in adjacent cell)
1966 -(Oct) Oxley Shire Drainage area constituted as a More than More than Non- Was Gazetted but was Other (please specify Although drained the area is no Not rated and not Open earthen Rural land and More than 64 Oxley Shire NE WAN Whorouly 278,919 no idea medium $5,000 $1,000 wetland draining nil 278,919 278,919 300 930 863 278,919 drainage area under 200 200 Gazetted abolished in Jan 1975 in adjacent cell) longer a formal drainage area funded channels culverts 200 the Drainage Area Act 1958.
65 One Mile Creek System NE WAN NIl Whorouly $10,000 urban/ roads 0
66 Middle Creek Wangaratta NE WAN NIl Whorouly $10,000 urban/ roads 0
15 Mile (3 Mile) from Greta – 67 NE WAN NIl Whorouly $10,000 urban/ roads 0 Laceby – Wangaratta Rural land and Open earthen 68 Whim Creek NE WAN NIL Part of Black Dog Creek DS. Medium $10,000 $2,000 Concrete 'drop wetland draining nil 0 channels structures'
Page A2 of A5 Rural Drainage Information Provided by each CMA As At December 2012 (Blank cells mean no information was provided) APPENDIX A
Q E1. E2a. E2b. E2c. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7a. E7b. E8a. E8b. E9a. E9b. E10. E11. E12. E13a. E13b. E14a. E15a. E16a.
Additional Capital Municipal funding need to Indicative annual Drainage Scheme Length of Estimate If Other Catchment Council Receiving Dominant Assets Physical restore drainage operation and Main asset Environmental features Environmental features Area Designated Drainage Number Location (Nearest Area serviced Drains in Number of Number of Status of Legislative Arrangements in (Please specify if an alternative Number of Area/length number of People from Area Management waterway/body Management Status Rating Status Forming Rural Condition of system to good maintenance funding serviced in adversely impacted by positively impacted by Area /person Area length Areea/km No. Network Name (Designated by Town or Feature) (ha) Scheme Landowners Ladholders Scheme Place or management status People (ha/km) people data /scheme Authority name Drainage System Assets condition/level of required catchment drainage system drainage system (ha) CMA) (km) Unknown elaboration or variation applies) service ($) ($) Constituted a drainage area 1959 - (Apr) under DA Act in 1959. In Gooramadda 1978 - (Oct) converted to a Drainage Area mixture of management, CMA Rural land and Gazetted river improvement district, Other (please specify Not rated and not Open earthen 69 Gooramadda NE IND constituted a Rutherglen no idea should manage assets, Local Gov Poor $50,000 $5,000 Concrete 'drop wetland draining nil 0 Area and included in Black Dog in adjacent cell) funded channels drainage area under does drain clearing activities structures' the Drainage Area Creek Improvement District, Act 1958 undert the River Improvement Act 1958.
Constituted a drainage area 1961 - (Aug) Carlyle under DA Act in 1961. In Drainage Area 1978 - (Oct) converted to a Rural land and mixture of management, CMA constituted a Gazetted river improvement district, Other (please specify Not rated and not Open earthen Rock grade 70 Carlyle NE IND Wahgunyah no idea should manage assets, Local Gov Poor $10,000 $2,000 wetland draining nil 0 drainage area under Area and included in Black Dog in adjacent cell) funded channels control does drain clearing activities the Drainage Area Creek Improvement District, structures Act 1958 undert the River Improvement Act 1958.
Constituted a drainage area 1964 - ( Oct) Carlyle under DA Act in 1964. In West drainage area 1978 - (Oct) converted to a Rural land and mixture of management, CMA constituted a Gazetted river improvement district, Other (please specify Not rated and not Open earthen Rock grade 71 Carlyle West NE IND Wahgunyah no idea should manage assets, Local Gov Poor $10,000 $2,000 wetland draining nil 0 drainage area under Area and included in Black Dog in adjacent cell) funded channels control does drain clearing activities the Drainage Area Creek Improvement District, structures Act 1958. undert the River Improvement Act 1958. 1969 - (July) Black Dog Creek Improvement District constituted BDCIT district established by Order in Council under River Improvement , 1978 (Nov) - Act 1958 in 1969. In 1978 Black Dog Creek gooramadda, carlyle and Rural land and extended to include Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 72 Black Dog Creek NE IND converted drainage (Chiltern, Rutherglenn, 140,000 no idea carlyle west were added to CMA Managed using river health priorities poor $15,000 $3,000 bank stabilisation wetland draining nil 140,000 433 0 Area funded channels areas under the Boorhamen) the District under River works River Improvement Improvement Act. BDC Act 1958 extended again under same 1990 (Oct) - act in 1999. extended again under the River Improvement Act 1958 1949 - (Jan) Greta Laceby Drainage Rural land and constituted a Originally est. under drainage area under Weir 'sills' on 15 More than More than Non- Drainage Areas Act 1928. Other (please specify abolished no longer a drainage Not rated and not Open earthen More than 73 Greta-Laceby NE WAN the Drainage Area Greta no idea Medium $20,000 $3,000 Mile, One Mile wetland draining nil 200 200 Gazetted Abolished in 1966 when in adjacent cell) area funded channels 200 Act 1928, and Middle Oxley made drainage district. 1961 extended Creek under the Drainage area Act 1958
No maintenance for 20 years. Other (Status Council believes that is has reported by CCMA, management responsibility since 74 Balliang PP&WP MOO Nil Balliang Little River 2,920 unknown unknown 2,920 9 0 2,920 however area within recently brought to their attention PP&WPCMA). by Office of Local Government. Little known of current status.
The area is managed and rated by Melbourne Water, and a Koo Wee Rup Committee consisting of Gazetted Managed by 75 Koo Wee Rup Swamp PP&WP CAR Nil 40,000 5,000 landholders in the area serves in Rated by MW Good Area Melbourne Water an advisory capacity, providing direction on maintenance and works in the area. Managed by Baw Operated as a trust until 1992. Baw Shire, in Trust now acts as an advisory consultation with an committee to the Shire. Shire advisory body. Some levies a special charge. Special adhoc maintenance charge ceased in 1999 – No formal by landholders scheme in place. Some ad hoc maintenance by landholders. Drainage committee established in 2008. Attempts to apply a tariff failed (landholder opposition). New committee established 2012 to explore management options. No data in Continue with advisory committee Trafalgar Meadows - Now Regional Gazetted facilitated by Local Government Not rated and not Open earthen Rural land and 76 known as the Moe River Flats WG BAW Nil Trafalgar Moe River/Drain 5,140 211 Poor $200,000 $50,000 Receiving waters 5,140 5,140 211 24 16 211 5,140 Drainage Area for the time being. Current joint funded channels roads 1, 2 & 3 Drainage Flats Plan App B CMA/Shire study to determine future arrangements. Moe Drain Investigation Report(SKM 2001)recommended the development of Water Management Scheme which was gazetted in July 2002. No work was done to appoint a management committee until 2008 as there were doubts about the legalities surrounding the introduction of a tariff. Known drainage issues have occurred Managed by Originally a trust, which evolved WGCMA through its into a sub-committee of the waterway program. Narracan Shire. Activities were No data in Individual confined to the Latrobe River. Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 77 Upper Latrobe (not mapped) WG BAW Nil Tararalgon Latrobe 202 landholders maintain Continue management by CMA Unknown 202 1 0 202 Drainage Area funded channels assets. through its waterway program. Plan App B No group established – individual landholders expected to maintain assets CMA continue to Continue management by CMA undertake river through it’s waterway program. health works River health works have continued through waterways No data in Costs for maintenance of Latrobe (The Latrobe program. Individual Regional Gazetted floodgates etc may need to be Not rated and not Open earthen 78 drainage area is made up of WG LAT Nil Rosedale Latrobe 12,000 landholders maintain Unknown 12,000 37 0 Drainage Area funded through a local funded channels Latrobe 1,2 & 3) assets. Plan App B management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). No group established – individual landholders expected to maintain assets CMA continue to undertake river Converted to become part of the health works Latrobe RIT on 14/6/50. Work in through waterways this drainage area was performed program. Individual solely on the River. Continue Area inclu. landholders maintain management by CMA through it’s No data in Latrobe (The Latrobe under the assets. waterway program. River health Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 79 drainage area is made up of WG WEL Nil Traralgon Latrobe majority works have continued. Costs for Unknown 0 Drainage Area funded channels Latrobe 1,2 & 3) Municipal maintenance of floodgates etc Plan App B Council (LAT) may need to be funded through a local management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b). No group established – individual landholders expected to maintain assetsAbolished 21/10/64. Has not Unknown – drainage been maintained since issues have occurred construction but appears to still recently. be functioning as intended. If drainage/flooding in this area No data in becomes a problem, it would best Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 80 Grip WG SGI Nil Toora Corner Inlet 224 be dealt with through the Corner Unknown 224 0 224 Drainage Area funded channels Inlet Drainage Advisory Plan App B Committee. Status of this group unknown – likely not to exist. Known drainage issues have occurred recently
Page A3 of A5 Rural Drainage Information Provided by each CMA As At December 2012 (Blank cells mean no information was provided) APPENDIX A
Q E1. E2a. E2b. E2c. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7a. E7b. E8a. E8b. E9a. E9b. E10. E11. E12. E13a. E13b. E14a. E15a. E16a.
Additional Capital Municipal funding need to Indicative annual Drainage Scheme Length of Estimate If Other Catchment Council Receiving Dominant Assets Physical restore drainage operation and Main asset Environmental features Environmental features Area Designated Drainage Number Location (Nearest Area serviced Drains in Number of Number of Status of Legislative Arrangements in (Please specify if an alternative Number of Area/length number of People from Area Management waterway/body Management Status Rating Status Forming Rural Condition of system to good maintenance funding serviced in adversely impacted by positively impacted by Area /person Area length Areea/km No. Network Name (Designated by Town or Feature) (ha) Scheme Landowners Ladholders Scheme Place or management status People (ha/km) people data /scheme Authority name Drainage System Assets condition/level of required catchment drainage system drainage system (ha) CMA) (km) Unknown elaboration or variation applies) service ($) ($) Landholders manage Known drainage issues have the drainage area. occurred recently. Occasional sea No data in wall repair and drain cleaning Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 81 Black Swamp WG SGI Nil Yanakie Corner Inlet 890 needed. Continue self- Unknown 890 3 0 890 Drainage Area funded channels management by landholders with Plan App B the CMA providing technical assistance as required. No management Converted to become part of the arrangements at Alberton Shire RIT (apart from the present. Drainage component in the S.G. Shire). The issues have occurred RIT carried out a major drainage recently. upgrade in 1986/87, paid for by landholders in the drainage area. No data in The setting up of a local drainage Regional Gazetted management group should be Not rated and not Open earthen 82 Hedley WG SGI Nil Hedley Corner Inlet 202 Unknown 202 0 202 Drainage Area considered. Drain cleaning works funded channels Plan App B have recently been done, so group may wish to focus on water quality. No management group established. Individuals doing own thing. Known drainage issues have occurred recently Converted to become part of the No management Alberton Shire RIT (apart from the arrangements at component in the S.G. Shire). The present. Drainage RIT carried out a major drainage issues have occurred upgrade in 1986/87, paid for by recently. landholders in the drainage area. The setting up of a local drainage No data in management group should be Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 83 Hedley WG WEL Nil Hedley Corner Inlet 2,226 considered. Drain cleaning works Unknown 2,226 7 0 2,226 Drainage Area funded channels have recently been done, so group Plan App B may wish to focus on water quality. No management group established. Individuals doing own thing. Known drainage issues have occurred recently
Unknown but known Has not been maintained since to require minimal construction but appears to still No data in management. be functioning as intended. Regional Gazetted Seawalls are private. No works Not rated and not Open earthen 84 Shady Creek WG SGI Nil Welshpool Corner Inlet 1,255 Unknown 1,255 4 0 1,255 Drainage Area needed at present but if future funded channels Plan App B works are needed a Local Management Committee would need to be set up. Unknown – Seawalls seem to be relatively well Potentially managed maintained in this scheme. by South Gippsland No data in Continue with advisory committee Shire. CMA has had Regional Gazetted facilitated by Local Government. Not rated and not Open earthen 85 Corner Inlet WG SGI Nil Port Franklin Corner Inlet 4,766 little to no contact Unknown 4,766 15 0 4,766 Drainage Area CMA to provide guidance and funded channels with landholders in Plan App B advice where appropriate. CMA recent years. has had little or no contact with landholders in recent years. Management committee quite Managed by active, and functions well. landholders. CMA Continue self-management by has had little to no No data in landholders with the CMA contact with Waratah Bay - Regional Gazetted providing technical assistance as Not rated and not Open earthen 86 Yanakie WG SGI Nil Yanakie 1,140 landholders in recent Unknown 1,140 4 0 1,140 Shallow Inlet Drainage Area required. CMA has had little or no funded channels years. Plan App B contact with landholders in recent years. Known drainage issues have occurred recently
Gazetted 87 Sandy Point WG 416 416 1 416 Area
Managed by Property owners have always landholders. CMA maintained this system and are has had little to no satisfied with self-management. No data in contact with Continue self-management by Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 88 Waratah WG SGI Nil Waratah Bay Warath Bay 1,227 landholders in recent landholders with the CMA Unknown 1,227 4 0 1,227 Drainage Area funded channels years. Drainage issues providing technical assistance as Plan App B have occurred recently. required. CMA has had little or no contact with landholders in recent years Converted to become part of the Landholders manage RIT on 26/7/50. Continue drainage asset management by CMA through its maintenance. Drainage issues have occurred waterway program. Costs for maintenance of floodgates etc. No data in recently. may need to be funded through a Regional Gazetted Not rated and not Open earthen 89 Middle & Lower Tarwin WG SGI Nil Tarwin Lower Tarwin River 10,000 local management group (Refer to Unknown 10,000 31 0 Drainage Area funded channels SKM, 1999b). No formal group Plan App B established – individuals responsible for drainage asset maintenance. Known drainage issues have occurred recently Only two main landholders in this Landholder drainage area. Continue self managed. CMA has management by landholders with had little to no No data in the CMA providing technical contact with Regional Gazetted assistance as required. CMA has Not rated and not Open earthen 90 Pound Creek WG SGI Nil Inverloch Andersons Inlet 3,000 landholders in recent Unknown 3,000 9 0 Drainage Area had little or no contact with funded channels years. Drainage issues Plan App B have occurred recently. landholders in recent years. Known drainage issues have occurred recently
No data in REFER TO PAGE 66 Drainage Lake Wellington - Regional Gazetted Scheme Management Not rated and not Open earthen 91 Heart Morass (not mapped) WG WEL Nil Sale/Longford No data Unknown Unknown 0 Latrobe River Drainage Area Arrangements - REGIONAL funded channels Plan App B DRAINAGE PLAN Managed through Works in drainage area would CMA waterways have involved development and program. Drainage maintenance of Blind Joe’s Creek. issues have occurred Continue management by CMA recently. through its waterway program. No data in Costs for maintenance of Regional Gazetted floodgates etc may need to be Not rated and not Open earthen 92 Holey Plains (not mapped) WG WEL Nil Rosedale/Longford Latrobe River 931 Unknown 931 3 0 931 Drainage Area funded through a local funded channels Plan App B management group (Refer to SKM, 1999b) No group established – individual landholders expected to maintain assets. Known drainage issues have occurred recently
Page A4 of A5 Rural Drainage Information Provided by each CMA As At December 2012 (Blank cells mean no information was provided) APPENDIX A
Q E1. E2a. E2b. E2c. E3. E4. E5. E6. E7a. E7b. E8a. E8b. E9a. E9b. E10. E11. E12. E13a. E13b. E14a. E15a. E16a.
Additional Capital Municipal funding need to Indicative annual Drainage Scheme Length of Estimate If Other Catchment Council Receiving Dominant Assets Physical restore drainage operation and Main asset Environmental features Environmental features Area Designated Drainage Number Location (Nearest Area serviced Drains in Number of Number of Status of Legislative Arrangements in (Please specify if an alternative Number of Area/length number of People from Area Management waterway/body Management Status Rating Status Forming Rural Condition of system to good maintenance funding serviced in adversely impacted by positively impacted by Area /person Area length Areea/km No. Network Name (Designated by Town or Feature) (ha) Scheme Landowners Ladholders Scheme Place or management status People (ha/km) people data /scheme Authority name Drainage System Assets condition/level of required catchment drainage system drainage system (ha) CMA) (km) Unknown elaboration or variation applies) service ($) Converted to become part of the ($) Landholders are RIT on 14/6/50. A special (higher) against a formal rate was applied to the area by drainage scheme. A the RIT as a result of higher small group of running / maintenance costs landholders have compared with other parts of the agreed to pay for the Latrobe RIT district. No rates maintenance of the apply. CMA to investigate Kilmany levee pump possibilities to rate beneficiaries No data in when required. CMA on a user pays system. A local Regional Gazetted is providing technical management group will need to Not rated and not Open earthen 93 Kilmany Park 1 & 2 WG WEL Nil Wurruk Lake Wellington 6,968 Unknown 6,968 22 0 Drainage Area and administrative be established for this purpose. funded channels Plan App B support. Landholders against a formal drainage scheme. A small group of landholders have agreed to pay for the maintenance of the Kilmany levee pump when required. CMA providing some technical and administrative support.
Gazetted 94 Lower Powlett WG 3,397 Unknown 3,397 11 Area Non- 95 Goroke W 19,921 19,921 62 Gazetted Non- 96 Koijak-Yalla Creek W 29,452 29,452 91 Gazetted Non- 97 Lake Bringalbert W 3,968 3,968 12 Gazetted Non- 98 Lake Charlegrark W 15,277 15,277 47 Gazetted Non- 99 Lake Wallace W 4,251 4,251 13 Gazetted Non- 100 Lake Yallukar W 8,591 8,591 27 Gazetted Non- 101 Maryvale Swamp W 6,278 6,278 19 Gazetted Non- 102 Neuarpur- Minimay W 17,045 17,045 53 Gazetted
Page A5 of A5