State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Name:
Organisation: Melbourne Water
Date: 13th July,
2015
This template is provided to help you respond to the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) discussion paper. Please answer as many or few questions as
you would like to provide input for. All submissions will be considered by DELWP in the development of the draft policy and policy impact assessment. Any
group or individual that provides comment will be kept informed and included in further consultation.
The information you provide in your submission will only be used by DELWP and EPA for the purpose of reviewing Water SEPPs. However, it may also be
disclosed to other relevant agencies as part of the consultation process. All submissions will be treated as public documents and may be published online for
public access. While formal requests for confidentiality will be honoured, please note that freedom of information access requirements will apply to all
submissions.
If you wish to access information in your submission once it is lodged with DELWP, you may contact the SEPP (Waters) Review team by email at
Water.SEPPreview@delwp.vic.gov.au.
Questions from
discussion paper
Please enter your response
On behalf of Melbourne Water, thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the SEPP Review discussion paper.
Clear policy established through SEPP (Waters) is an important driver for many areas of Melbourne Water’s activities and investment.
Melbourne Water’s work extends across the water cycle and our input takes into account balancing perspectives for the management of
sewage transfer and treatment , sewage quality, stormwater, natural assets, rural land, waterway health improvement initiatives, pollution
response, developer services, environmental flows, drinking water supply, recreational water quality, and of course our customers.
The discussion paper identifies several strategic challenges with the potential to degrade Victoria’s waters. The SEPP (Waters) is an
important tool to enable the state to effectively manage these challenges and drive interventions to protect and improve the water
environment.
Melbourne Water would like to see much of the current policy retained and considers the review as an opportunity to:
 Clarify some policy areas and refine policy gaps
 Allow for flexible approaches that are outcome driven rather than input or output driven, and
 Examine approaches to drive an improved attainment program.
Melbourne Water’s achievements (as waterway manager, environmental steward and as licence holder) are often measured by our ability
to achieve environmental protection and enhancement, so we are supportive of the policy moving to setting both long-term objectives,
and short-term goals to be met over the life of the SEPP. These short-term goals should be feasible over the life of the policy and
contribute to realising these longer-term state-wide objectives.
Any general
comments on the
proposed scope of
State Environment
Protection Policy
(Waters):
The provisions in the current SEPP that allow for flexible options to be developed to achieve outcomes, including offsets, risk-based
approaches, and the policy principles (such as those guiding cost-benefit decision making) should be retained. This approach should be
broadened, with the policy establishing broad outcomes for environmental protection and improvement and continuing to allow for
flexibility in how these are achieved. This facilitates adaptive management over time as greater understanding emerges, and promotes
innovation to deliver overall value to the community.
An example of where more flexibility would be beneficial is in the approach to mixing zones. The reduction of mixing zones has driven
useful outcomes to date, but with significant progress made over the life of the current SEPP, in some cases there may now be little
additional benefit achieved for great cost in attempting to continuously reduce these zones where full diversion to recycling is not
practicable. In such a situation establishing an outcome in terms of overall environmental risk, and allowing the use of mechanisms such as
off-sets would enable an adaptable approach to achieve the optimal balance of environmental outcomes consistent with community
willingness to pay.
The Statutory Policy Review received many submissions highlighting that measures in the current SEPP were not adopted. To ensure
effective implementation of the SEPP, accountabilities for each of the outcomes needs to be made clear. Metrics to enable monitoring,
evaluation and reporting against achievements would add value by helping regulators, agencies and the community see where progress is
being made or where new threats are emerging. To this end Melbourne Water aligns with Recommendations 4, 6 and 10 of the Statutory
Policy Review.
Prior to conducting the Policy Impact Assessment and Implementation Planning, an opportunity exists to evaluate the effectiveness of the
current SEPP. This will assist in better understanding the:
 Consequences of amendments to the SEPP,
 Opportunities for improvement in the attainment program and implementation plan, and
 Best mechanisms to achieve change in the face of the strategic threats identified in the discussion paper.
It is suggested that an evaluation could include a comparison of the effectiveness of the variety of tools to promote active adoption by all
sectors of government, business and the community (for example, regulation, integration with other Acts, enforcement, capacity building,
incentives and education).
1
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Melbourne Water manages bulk water supply and sewage in Melbourne and is also the waterway and drainage manager for the Port
Phillip and Westernport Region. Therefore, Melbourne Water holds a broad range of roles and responsibilities designated under SEPP. The
SEPP is clearly understood to be a key policy that has guided many areas of activity and program development across the business.
Question 1: What is
your understanding
of your roles and
responsibilities
under Water
SEPPs?
As a result of SEPP and associated licenses and plans such as the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for Port Phillip Bay, Melbourne
Water has invested in:
 Significant upgrades to sewage treatment facilities to improve receiving waters, protect beneficial uses, and facilitate safe and
sustainable use of recycled water
 Stormwater wetland construction and maintenance
 Community capacity building programs for stormwater management including street scale works with local government
 Research to better target interventions to improve catchment health and deliver better value for community spend on waterway
health programs
 Rural land management programs
 Stream frontage revegetation
 Environmental water releases and stream flow management plans to maintain and enhance waterway ecology
 Developing a better understanding of recreational risk in the Yarra River
 Progressive improvement in sewage transfer containment during wet weather
 Pollution identification and response
2
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Current use of SEPP:
Most aspects of SEPP either apply to activities or waters managed by Melbourne Water:



Discharge requirements, meeting 1:5 containment standards for sewage transfer, and offsets clauses are used in the sewage planning
and management areas of the business.
Controlling releases of discharges from water storages, so as to minimise impact and deliver environmental water in the most effective
way, are managed in our function as water supply manager and the delivery partner for environmental water.
Waterway management activities that are guided by SEPP include assessing whole of water cycle servicing strategies for new growth
areas, riparian restoration, implementation of best practice standards, pollution response, supporting local government around water
sensitive urban design, construction and management of stormwater treatment wetlands to meet targets for nutrient reduction to
Port Phillip Bay and provisions under Clause 56, and providing information to the public on recreational risks.
Opportunities for improvement:

SEPP (Waters) should clearly articulate the community’s expectations for environmental protection, drawing on the principles set out
in the Environment Protection Act. The current SEPP has done this well, but improvements can be made to assist agencies and
catchment managers set achievable priorities for protection (especially where biodiversity values are high).

The responsible management of waters (including groundwater) should be underpinned by appropriate risk management and
prioritisation to ensure sustainable and equitable outcomes. Point source intervention has absorbed significant investment over the
life of the current SEPP, and continued pursuit of further improvement in this area may not offer community value for money.
Addressing the challenge of more diffuse impacts associated with urbanisation and changing land use practices offers the potential to
deliver on community expectations in the most effective and efficient way. Land use planning and management provides the first and
most effective barrier to protection of waters. Recognition in policy of the integration between the policy and planning processes to
ensure they work in unison would be beneficial. This intrinsic connection between catchment management and protection of
Victoria’s waters underpins the achievement of the SEPP objectives for the protection and management of Victoria’s waters.

The challenge in managing diffuse pollution is widely acknowledged and will likely be exacerbated with the significant threats and
issues associated with increased urbanisation and intensive agriculture, as identified in the discussion paper. There is opportunity to
examine the potential to use existing instruments to address the issue of diffuse pollution, including but not limited to:
- declaration of high value catchments under the Catchment and Land Protection Act
- inclusion of additional activities in the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) Regulations
- optimising provisions in statutory land use planning as per the Statutory Policy Review recommendation 6
- invoking the principle of product stewardship where activities that give rise to particular priority pollutants; for example the
removal of lead from petrol has led to significant reduction of lead in waterways
- risk based regulation of chemicals of concern
- incentive-based initiatives, and education, awareness and capacity building
Question 2: What
aspects of Water
SEPPs does your
organisation
currently use? How
could Water SEPPs
be improved to
assist your

organisation’s dayto-day operations
and longer-term
strategic planning?

Catchment imperviousness is now readily acknowledged to be a key driver in stream degradation where modification of hydrological
regimes are significant to waterway ecology, and working to improve water quality alone will not achieve protection of ecological
values. The revision of the SEPP provides an opportunity to reflect this in policy, to articulate this stressor as a key threat and to set
long-term policy objectives and achievable and realistic short-term goals for the life of the policy. An examination of the current tools
available to best reach this policy objective (as outlined above) would be required to best determine how to cost effectively achieve
this.
A key area for improvement is in the designation of beneficial use associated with potable water supply. The present designation
(“human consumption after appropriate treatment”) implies that source water quality can degrade provided that the risk is matched
by treatment. This is inconsistent with the preventive risk management principles in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG)
which require comprehensive preventive measures from catchment to consumer, and sets out that “Wherever possible these measures
should be to prevent contamination in the catchment rather than to rely on downstream control.” As a water storage manager under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, Melbourne Water’s functionality can be significantly impacted by activities managed under the SEPP if
those activities lead to deterioration in source water quality. Further, investment in treatment (which may be required if source water
is allowed to deteriorate or the impact of emerging threats is unchecked) may not be the community-least-cost solution and costs may
not necessarily be borne by polluting parties.
Segments where harvesting occurs for potable water supply (as defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Regulations) should be designated simply as having the beneficial use “source water for potable water supply”. This would be
consistent with the ADWG and support water authorities to determine which balance of catchment investment versus treatment
investment is most cost-effective.

Undertaking an evaluation of the state of the environment to determine the key strategic threats driving the greatest impacts to
beneficial uses. This would contribute to the evidence-base underpinning the revised SEPP. A thorough problem formulation analysis
would:
- confirm the evidence base for cause and effect,
- confirm what tangible interventions could most effectively be used to tackle these causes and emerging threats,
- evaluate the current SEPP including strengths and areas for improvement, and
- guide subsequent analysis and decision-making on priorities.
The revised SEPP should be supported by a monitoring and evaluation process to support its implementation with accurate, evidence
based reporting that informs management and decision-making to guide and improve implementation. This will contribute to learning
and knowledge sharing, upholding accountability and compliance, and support an adaptive management approach.
3
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Question 3: Do you
have any concerns
about the proposed
working title of
State Environment
Protection Policy
(Waters)? If so,
what are they?
No.
Melbourne Water supports that the SEPP (Waters) sets both the framework for long term improvement as well as the context for what can
feasibly be achieved over the life of the policy. Outcomes that are achievable and measurable over the life of the policy will assist agencies
in developing business cases for funding and improve reporting against these outcomes. Focussing on these elements should also help set
the scope for Policy Impact Assessment and assessing community ‘willingness to pay’.
Question 4: What is
the best way to
reflect what is
feasible versus
what is aspirational
in the context of a
10-year policy
cycle?
In establishing long-term policy objectives , a critique of the existing SEPP would be informative having due regard to:
 existing and potential beneficial uses
 current environmental condition
 strategic challenges and threats within the catchment
 desired state for future generations, and
 conservation values now and into future.
The EP Act principles combined with current water quality and biological objectives are a good starting point for considering setting the
long term context and trajectory over multiples policy cycles. Additionally, long term policy objectives could also be described as outcomes
for ecosystem states and describe what beneficial uses are expected to be supported in these states. For example, Melbourne Water’s
Healthy Waterways Strategy extends beyond water quality and biological objectives to recognising those values such as amenity, birds,
fish, frogs, macroinvertebrates, platypus and vegetation, which were selected based on their importance to the community.
Feasible outcomes that can be achieved within the life of the policy need to be described as steps along the path towards meeting the long
term policy objectives. The current SEPP measures success against water quality objectives that in general support good ecological
outcomes and protect beneficial uses. However, blanket water quality objectives can be a simplistic instrument, or when enacted alone
may not always give a clear signal of success over a 10-year time frame. For example, some efforts that are feasible (such as education and
capacity building) may not result in measureable water quality improvements over the life of the policy but can contribute to long term
movement towards the policy goal or arresting further degradation in the face of increasing urbanisation. Other metrics could be included
to provide more useful short term measures of success and link directly to the key threats present in the catchment.
The policy should place emphasis on protecting areas of highest value and include a framework that allows for the prioritisation of works
to achieve efficient and effective outcomes for the investment of public funds with the aim of improve the condition of the environment
and protect current condition.
Question 5: Do you
support the
proposed SEPP
(Waters) objective
of “this policy is to
protect and
improve the quality
of Victoria’s waters
while providing for
economic and
social
development”?
Why?
Question 6: Do you
support the need
to balance
economic and
social development
with overall
protection and
improvement of
water quality for
Victoria’s water
environments?
Why?
The proposed objective could be more simply worded as “This policy is to protect and improve the quality of Victoria’s waters”. The
proposed objective highlights one of 11 policy principles in the current SEPP and it is recommended that the revised SEPP should promote
the balanced use of all policy principles.
Currently the policy principles of the EP Act are repeated in the SEPP and it is recommended that these principles remain in SEPP because
they:
 reinforce what the policy stands for
 make the policy work better as a one-stop document, in a similar way as creating one SEPP does, and
 underpin decisions and guide how to apply the clauses in the SEPP for the protection and management of Victoria’s waters.
If they are removed then a clear reference to policy principles in the EP Act needs to be made.
Melbourne Water supports balancing across all dimensions (economic, social and environmental), as this supports holistic liveability
outcomes. It is important that decision making is balanced across all three areas consistently, so that any emphasis on one area at any
point in time (for example at different points in economic cycles) is managed to ensure the best outcome for current and future
generations. Currently, tools are available to establish the significance of impacts (including externalities) and monetise these where
possible, however, the ability to monetise social and environmental benefits needs further improvement.
The current policy balances the application of the principle of integration of economic, social and environmental alongside the
precautionary principle, principle of conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and principle of intergenerational equity.
This balance should be maintained in the revised policy.
Melbourne Water also supports the application of the principle of integrated environmental management to ensure that the management
of environmental impacts on one segment of the environment does not adversely impact another environmental value. For example, in
managing wastewater treatment plant discharges to the environment, due consideration is required in managing energy consumption and
protecting ecological values such as sites of state, national and international biodiversity significance.
4
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Question 7: What
are the challenges
of balancing
economic and
social development
with protecting and
improving water
quality?
How should we
manage the
appropriate tradeoffs between
them?
Question 8: Do you
foresee any
problems or
opportunities that
may arise from
creating one
consistent SEPP to
apply to all
Victorian waters?
Are there other
options for
streamlining the
policies that we
should consider?
Question 9: Are
there any specific
types of water
environments, for
example, a
wastewater
treatment lagoon,
where you think
beneficial uses
should not be
protected?
Question 10: Do
you think the
current measures
for classifying
surface water and
groundwater
segments are still
appropriate? Are
there other
measures that
should be
explored?
A significant challenge is making a decision when the value of a significant externality is difficult to monetise, especially so when then are
no, or weak regulatory instruments. A current example is the oversimplified method for valuing biodiversity. In the absence of a common
unit of currency for effects, more subjective processes can lead to decisions that are not in balance.
To manage the balance between economic and social development and protecting and improving water quality, the following is offered:




The policy principles, when applied collectively, guide this balance. The integration of these policy principles into a decision framework
may be beneficial in facilitating their use to achieve balanced outcomes.
Developing and using tools that more effectively monetise externalities and social and environmental benefits/costs.
Improve regulatory clarity pertaining to obligations by establishing baseline social, public health and environmental conditions that are
clear and able to be used in economic regulatory processes. Terms such as ‘maximise’ and ‘minimise’ can be problematic.
Public reporting against outcomes to enable transparent evaluation and adaptive management.
Melbourne Water supports the creation of one consistent SEPP that includes all current schedules and groundwater as a way to simplify
and create consistency.
However, determining appropriate objectives for all segments and sub-segments may become quite complex when forming these into one
SEPP (Waters). Some consideration needs to be made when integrating the schedules and the groundwater SEPP across the state both in
terms of beneficial uses and relevant criteria.
The Statutory Policy Review recommends that roles and responsibilities of agencies be reviewed in the SEPP and Melbourne Water
endorses this as an approach that will assist in streamlining the SEPP and clarifying how responsibility is shared across agencies and
community.
The revision of SEPP provides an opportunity to recognise that the water cycle is interconnected and enable a prioritised risk-based
approach achieving multiple benefits across the water cycle.
Melbourne Water supports the current exemptions stated in Clause 10 and would seek to add the following:
 wastewater treatment infrastructure such as lagoons
 wastewater and recycled water storages
 stormwater retention ponds (if these are considered separate to artificial wetlands)
 clarification around mixing zones where appropriate
 constructed water bodies
Wastewater environments such as sewage treatment lagoons and recycled water storages should not be protected because they are
artificial environments that need to be managed for the purpose for which they were constructed. This meets the intent outlined in Clause
10.
The review of the SEPP would benefit from further analysis of how segments are defined and what criteria are used. For example, in the
surface water context it is unclear how the Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains segment has been derived. Currently there are areas of
landscape declared in the “Forest” segment that are used for agricultural purposes and are unlikely to be returned to forest. Given that
land use is one of the best predictors of water quality, it would seem useful to include land-use as one of the factors used to define
segments.
It is important to bring together the groundwater and surface water SEPPs and establish consistency across beneficial uses but more
importantly to identify and protect those areas where interaction occurs; namely groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and aquifer
recharge zones. Merging the SEPPs should highlight where clarification and further development of standards may be required for the
mutual protection of both water environments. These need to be prioritised for protection both in SEPP and in planning, particularly when
considering climate change.
Guidelines have been developed by DELWP that could be referenced of provide guidance in SEPP.
 Ministerial Guidelines for groundwater licensing and the protection of high value Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
http://waterregister.com.au/water-entitlements/about-entitlements/take-and-use-licences#Min-Policies and
 Groundwater Sharing Guidance – guidance for planning the take of Victoria’s groundwater resources which references
groundwater depth and the need to protect this to maintain GDEs.
5
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Question 11: Are
there any problems
with the spatial
arrangements or
segment
boundaries in the
existing Water
SEPPs? If so, what
are they?
See Question 10 re: Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains segment
It is recommended that an impact assessment be undertaken on any proposed changes to existing segments and associated beneficial uses
so that the broader implications and risks associated with these changes are clearly understood and articulated. This impact assessment
should also consider other legislative requirements which pertain to those beneficial uses, e.g. food safety, health and wellbeing.
It is recommended that the Werribee Segment and its associated beneficial uses be retained.
It is noted that the discussion paper proposes the removal of the Werribee Segment from Port Phillip Bay, including the area of the
Western Treatment Plant (WTP) discharge in the proposed Corio segment, and introducing those beneficial uses pertaining to aquaculture
and primary contact recreation in the area previously designated ‘Werribee Segment’. Melbourne Water considers that the holistic
application of the existing policy principles would not support this amendment, in light of the WTPs environmental significance and role as
a provider of a cost-effective sewerage treatment service to Melbourne.
Question 12: What
do you think are
the advantages or
problems with the
new approach to
segments and subsegments?
WTP is home to a large number of resident and migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, and the significance of this is recognised by its Ramsar
Convention status as a Wetland of International Importance and by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It
treats more than half of Melbourne’s sewage and the cost effective treatment of sewage is the fundamental strategic imperative of the
site. Our customers, the community and economic regulator look to us to manage the site’s operating context to deliver on this imperative.
The removal of the Werribee Segment and introduction of beneficial uses pertaining to aquaculture and primary contact recreation in the
area previously designated ‘Werribee Segment’ would potentially conflict with maintaining the effective management and protection of
the Ramsar site and meeting obligations under the EPBC Act. The treatment and discharge arrangements for the site, and associated
significant investments on the community’s behalf, are based on a comprehensive environmental risk assessment. This has clearly
demonstrated that the optimum outcome for the local ecology requires a fine balance between treatment interventions and support for
biodiversity values. Changes to the segment designation and beneficial uses could lead to a significant cost burden to the community, or
potentially give rise to risks associated with aquaculture and primary contact recreation (particularly where SEPP indicators may be
insufficient for fully characterising the risk). Balancing the many and varied objectives for the site, while delivering it’s overall strategic
imperative for sustainable cost effective sewage treatment for the community, would be more effectively achieved if the Werribee
Segment was retained.
Melbourne Water considers the inclusion of an urban segment in the proposed SEPP to be positive in that it aligns with the designation of
segments in terms of catchment characteristics and articulates our understanding that urbanisation, even utilising best management
practices, is a key threat to waterways. It is unclear what beneficial uses will be protected in the urban segment as this was not presented
in Table 2. The proposed urban segment appears to include all new urban growth areas where, in most cases, it is likely that waterway
condition will decline from present if development occurs as planned. Setting feasible objectives in the urban segment needs careful
consideration to support the long-term policy objective. For example in high value parts of new urban areas, urban water quality objective
may not adequately protect current condition
Question 13: Are
there any features
of the landscape
that you would like
to see as a
standalone
segment or subsegment?
Question 14: Do
you believe that all
beneficial uses set
out in Table 2 of
the discussion
paper should still
be protected under
the new SEPP
(Waters)? Where
do you think a
beneficial use
would not apply?
Why?
Retain the Werribee Segment in Port Phillip Bay and current beneficial uses. (See Question 12 above)
Melbourne Water supports the inclusion of an urban segment in the proposed policy. (See Question 12 above)
We would propose that Table 2 be revised to:
- consistently reflect the segments and sub-segments,
- amend ‘human consumption after appropriate treatment’ to ‘source water for potable water supplies’ and delete ‘potable water
supplies’
- articulate the tiered approach to achieving objectives
- rationalise the beneficial uses to remove redundancies between GoV and WoV (and schedules).
We recognise that it may not be possible to fully protect one aspect of a beneficial use without compromising others. For example
reducing nutrient discharges to Port Phillip Bay may improve local populations of sea grass but it may compromise the abundance of
intertidal organisms which feed migratory birds protected under Ramsar or EPBC and impact recreational fishery populations.
A beneficial use may not apply in an area that is already degraded, but if there are community expectations it could become a long-term
policy objective to achieve that beneficial use. This would then require long-term planning and funding to be obtained to work toward this
outcome.
6
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
Question 15: What
method or
approach could be
used to apply the
beneficial uses to
segments and subsegments?
Question 16: Are
there any
additional
beneficial uses that
you believe should
be protected? Are
there any that you
think should no
longer be
protected? Why?
Question 17: What
do you think about
the current
indicators, the
approach for
deriving objectives
and the proposed
changes?
Question 18: How
have nutrient load
targets been useful
in driving
environmental
investment
outcomes? Would
you like to see a
different approach,
and if so, what
might that be?
Question 19: What
is the preferred
method for
management of atrisk areas? Are
there activities that
need greater
intervention or
regulation? What
would the
intervention be, for
example, voluntary
or mandatory
codes of practice,
regulation via
licensing?
Where segments and sub-segments have come directly from an existing SEPP or schedule, then beneficial uses assigned previously can be
examined for current relevance. The methodology developed for assigning beneficial uses for the current SEPP could be reviewed to see if
it is still appropriate, updated if required, and used in deriving beneficial uses for proposed segments and sub segments that previously did
not exist.
It is important to consider what the community values in various segments and sub-segments, in terms of protection or improvement, and
the costs to achieve these beneficial uses. Investment to achieve a beneficial use that is currently not achieved will be more readily
enabled if the community is explicitly willing to pay for a beneficial use.
No.
Melbourne Water supports the alignment of indicators with national standards and acknowledges that the SEPP Waters Scientific Advisory
Panel is overseeing the development of the indicators and objectives. It is recommended that those indicators associated with beneficial
uses pertaining to human health reflect current science and quantitative risk based approaches, as articulated in the National Water
Quality Management Strategies and by the NHMRC. A public health expert should be included on the Independent Scientific Advisory Panel
to ensure that human health and linkages with environmental condition are adequately addressed as this is a gap in the current SEPP.
The current indicators do not draw a clear enough relationship to higher ecological values such as fish and platypus and other beneficial
uses that are supported under the SEPP. Ideally, in setting the scene for a future state that is the long-term policy objective, the SEPP
would go beyond water quality and macroinvertebrates and consider the full range of indicators of ecosystem health such as fish and
platypus populations etc. However, Melbourne Water acknowledges that this requires good data sets to be available and these may not
currently be available statewide.
Nutrient load targets have driven investments for the protection of certain water environments such as Port Phillip Bay. Load targets
formed the basis for considerable investment by Melbourne Water and resulted in the upgrade of the Western Treatment Plant to achieve
a 500 tonne annual load reduction and the construction of 52 stormwater treatment wetlands to achieve an annual 100 tonne load target.
Wetlands have not only treated stormwater for the benefit of Port Phillip Bay but have provided the added benefits of creating local
habitat for birds and other values and improving local amenity, and sediment ponds have been effective at intercepting toxicants before
they reach waterways. Load based targets can be an effective mechanism to protect bays, but they are less useful for waterways where
concentrations are more important.
The advantage of a loads-based target is that it allows flexibility in developing a range of options for achieving the objective of managing to
a scientifically derived nutrient budget for an environment. However nutrients also support productivity for ecosystems and fisheries, and
if the nutrient discharge goes too low it could also have negative ecological and economic impacts. Nutrient reduction requires significant
capital and operational investment, and in the case of treatment plants, often requiring chemical inputs and increasing greenhouse gas
emissions. Wherever further reduction of nutrients is contemplated a holistic environmental assessment should be undertaken to
determine the best overall environmental outcome, as a continuous drive to improve water quality can have other negative environmental
impacts.
The discussion paper states that the objectives act as a trigger for further investigation to identify what needs to be improved and
proposes water quality improvement plans may be an appropriate tool for addressing these issues. However, water quality triggers are not
the only mechanism that should be used to identify at-risk areas. In many cases, to achieve the most cost effective outcomes to protect
beneficial uses, at-risk areas need to be identified before any changes to water quality are detected. Mitigation measures that are planned
for protection are likely to be more cost effective than measures that are imposed to restore from impact.
The SEPP (Waters) could articulate the preference for a preventive risk-management approach to the protection of beneficial uses and this
would be reflected in implementation plans. For instance, at-risk areas can easily be identified to be urban growth regions where current
best stormwater-management practices are not sufficient for protecting the beneficial uses of these environments as development
proceeds. Statutory policy should clearly articulate, on behalf of the community, what degree of protection is to be achieved in urban
growth areas recognising that in many cases there will be degradation from current condition. An evaluation of the full range of
instruments available (regulatory, voluntary, codes of practice, incentives) needs to be made to determine their relative potential in
supporting the achievement of SEPP (Waters) policy outcomes.
Also refer to discussion in Question 2 pertaining to the management of diffuse pollution.
Melbourne Water supports the Statutory Policy Review recommendation 2 of seeking opportunities to regulate high-impact activities
where possible for greatest cost-benefit and where other instruments have proved either ineffective or have achieved as much as they
can.
7
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper
SEPP should draw on best available science and use evidence to support future reviews and changes to water quality targets and beneficial
uses. This current review of the SEPP would benefit from a critique of the current science pertaining to emerging threats to the
environment, impacts of climate change and international benchmarking to ensure that the policy adopts the best approach to managing
these threats. It is suggested that future reviews of the current state of the science and emerging threats should occur at least every 5
years. Key learnings from such reviews should be translated through to implementation planning as soon as is practicable.
Question 20: What
do you think the
role of SEPP
(Waters) should be
in identifying and
filling knowledge
gaps over the life of
the policy? How
can we assure an
adaptive approach
within SEPP
(Waters)?
Some examples of where current scientific understanding could be considered for incorporation into the SEPP review are offered below.
The water quality targets in SEPP should be reflected in a manner that ensures their currency with advancements in knowledge of risk and
incorporate revisions of National Water Quality Management Strategies. For example, in recent years there has been a considerable
improvement in understanding and managing microbial risk which is not reflected in the current SEPP and its implementation. Additionally,
the SEPP does not currently cover blue green algae management.
Further consideration is required in how the SEPP manages any emerging threats from persistent and bio-accumulative chemicals,
pharmaceuticals and emerging chemicals of concern from both an environmental and human health perspective. The SEPP will need to
maintain currency with how chemicals that disperse and accumulate cause impact.
The SEPP should consider the use of conceptual models to facilitate
 a better understanding of threats present in a catchment,
 a preventive risk based approach to managing threats at source rather than relying on end-point water quality objectives,
 an evidence base to interventions to manage threats, and
 improved communication of threats and interventions between agencies, industry and the community.
Any other
information you
would like to
share:
Another potential area for inclusion in new policy would be taking into account hydrological impacts for the protection of waterway health,
for example, the protection of ephemeral waterways and headwater streams, where recent research elucidates how important these areas
of a waterway are for providing habitat biodiversity and for the ecosystem services they provide. (source: Barmuta et al. (2009).
Waterlines Report series #25, National Water Commission, Australian Government.) Currently these are not mentioned in SEPP and
guidance for their consideration in a catchment context could be included in the revised SEPP. Urbanisation continues to extend into these
areas and policy inclusion would help establish the community’s expectations for standards to be applied in in certain high value areas in
order to achieve adequate protection of beneficial uses.
In relation to potable water:



Change definition of beneficial use to “source water for potable supply” and retain 30 (1) (A) and 30 (1) (B).
Retain 28 (2)(B) and define ‘special water supply areas’ (such areas could be defined under the Water Act 1989 (Vic), the
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Vic), or both).
Retain 1 in 5 (or better) (prov. #35) for potable water supply areas and benchmark to other jurisdictions
The SEPP sets the context for the management of wastewater discharges. In relation to the protection of beneficial uses for potable water
supply, the revised SEPP could more clearly incorporate the management of wastewater treatment plants discharging upstream of water
supply off-takes (e.g. incorporate the elements of preventive risk management, including reference to HACCP principles into discharge
licences and risk communication).
8