KWRLFPD AC Minutes
Date
4 Dec 2014
Time
1:00pm Location
MW KWR Office
Chairperson
Bruce Turner
Meeting Subject
Attendees
Matthew Coleman, Rosemary Zurrer, Frank Butera, Con Raffa, Ian
Anderson, Mark Howard, Vishal Gupta, David Young, (GB), Mark
Chicoine (MC), Jarrod Mitchell (JM)
Apologies
Bernard Dillon, Frank Rovers, Robert Mure
Notes
Mark Chicoine
Topic
Advisory Committee
Meeting 5
Presenter
1. 1. Welcome and apologies
Bruce Turner
Time
allott
ed
1.00
2. 2. Actions from previous meetings
Bruce Turner
1:05
Discussion
The status of actions:
Action 4.1: MW to discuss further with Baw Baw Shire to potentially incorporate
Council's assets into the modelling that is being done as part of the Longwarry
investigation.
Status: MW has discussed with the Shire and as the modelling has been completed
there is no opportunity to do so at this time. Action completed.
Action 4.2: Jarrod will request the Flood Mapping and Mitigation Team speak with
Rosemary and can discuss at the next meeting in December.
Status: Discussions around works proposed by Rosemary to enhance protection of
Longwarry have occurred. Action completed.
Action 4.3: MW to report back findings of the 200 hectare rule from the SOAP Team
project work when available.
Status: Action outstanding.
Action 4.4:– MW to respond back (re report & compensation) to Bernie directly.
Status: Draft report (no final version was prepared) sent to all committee members.
There are no outstanding claims for compensation. Action completed.
Action 4.5: – JM to close the loop with the landowner affected by the concerns
1
Topic
Presenter
raised by Rosemary, to explain MW's approach.
Time
allott
ed
Status: Blockage was removed. Action completed.
Action 4.6: MW to communicate the hydraulics of the King Parrot Creek Retarding
Basin to Rosemary and landowner who queried how it works. Rosemary to confirm
who the landowner is.
Status: Action completed.
Action 4.7: Matt C to advise MW (Andrew) of specific location where subsurface
drains were resulting in the need for some desilting; Andrew to assess if this was a
capacity or maintenance issue.
Status: Agreed a farm maintenance issue of landowner. Action completed.
Action 4.8: David to provide MW with the location/ landowner details of this spoil
bank to enable an inspection.
Status: Action outstanding.
Action 4.9: MW to answer the questions raised at the VFF in the next bulletin.
Status: Ian to provide list of questions for next edition. Action outstanding.
Action 4.10: MW to report on water plantain trial results at December meeting with
recommendations moving forward.
Status: Jarrod provided an update on the trial. Report noted that different
management techniques were tested. Recommendations were that eradication was
not achievable in the District as much comes from upstream in catchments; annual
channel weed spraying is effective, best to complete spraying early in spring and
mowing early before the seed is released.
David noted that plantain doesn’t normally impact on capacity so we shouldn’t be
spending on perception alone. Committee was generally supportive of the report
recommendations. Action completed.
Action 4.11: Jarrod will speak with Con Raffa prior to sending information out to
the Dalmore group to explain the conclusion of the investigation and views of the
Committee to schedule regular desilting and monitor performance, as
recommended, rather move the floodgates.
Status: Action completed.
3. 3. Community feedback
Committee
1:35
Di Discussion
Jarrod noted that it was good to see many members of the committee in attendance at
the sessions. Mark acknowledged that several staff from Baw Baw Shire also attended
and spoke with residents. Rosemary noted that it would have been good to have staff
from Cardinia Shire there at the Longwarry session as well. Con suggested that it may
be worthwhile having sessions like them twice per year.
Matt had Bayles residents querying vegetation in Yallock Cut downstream of the Bayles
bridge and even though the modelling says it’s not an issue, perhaps MW should
consider whether it’s cheaper to remove now before it gets bigger and becomes more
difficult and expensive.
2
Topic
Presenter
Time
allott
Action 5.1: MW to review decision criteria for vegetation removal to determine whether
ed
or when it is better to remove less mature vegetation even if modelling does not
indicate an impact on capacity.
Action 5.2: MW to include a piece in next bulletin on vegetation.
Rosemary queried what MW’s policy was on removing blackberries as polluted water
from the Longwarry plant was being held back in Mackey Drain by blackberry growth.
Melbourne Water has an extensive weed control program that targets invasive weeds
where possible, however the focus of spending within district is on drainage and flow
conveyances. Weed control is the responsibility of all landowners and land managers
across the State.
Ian thanked Jarrod for the helicopter video footage of the 2011 flood event which had
been provided to VFF and CFA. Jarrod agreed to provide footage to committee
members.
Action 5.3: MW to provide helicopter footage of the 2011 event to committee
members.
4. 4. Works Program and Budget
Jarrod
1:45
Di Discussion
Jarrod provided a copy of the Budget Update table to the committee and noted the
spending to date.
Jarrod explained the move to a new program management software, 'Maximo', and the
future benefits of having all works programming automated / programmed in for the
future.
Matt queried where MW is doing necessary repair works, was the aim to increase the
level of service where it is currently lower than desired? Jarrod responded that where
possible that was the aim.
5. 5. Capacity Project update
Jarrod
2:00
Discussion
Jarrod discussed progress on the cost sharing project activity.
David queried whether MW undertakes to re-profile when repair works are done to
prevent slippages happening in future. Jarrod confirmed this was the case where it can
be accommodated within the available land and would improve capacity – showed some
photo examples of recent works.
Vishal queried how the cost sharing works are distributed noting that there did not
appear to be many aimed at increasing capacity at the Longwarry end. Jarrod
responded that they are prioritised using a risk matrix and noted No.’s 15 & 16 on the
map as well as the considerable spending in recent years on Mackey Drain which has a
comparatively high level of service. It was agreed to provide Vishal with a completed list
of recent works on Mackey Drain.
Rosemary commented that Longwarry had flooded three times in 80 years. There was
agreement that use of the term '1 in 100' in relation to these floods was confusing. An
investigation of the Longwarry area is being done to look at the needs there, given it is
3
Topic
Presenter
a relatively densely populated area.
Time
allott
ed
Action 5.4: MW to provide Vishal with a completed list of recent works on Mackey
Drain.
Con queried when bringing all drains up to the 1 – 2 year level of service would be
completed. Jarrod responded within the next 18 months, where possible, as some have
limitations due to road assets and private assets (fences, private property, crossings).
6. 6. Reflections on community drop-in sessions
Jarrod
Discussed under Item 3 above.
7. 7. Meeting room dedication
Mark
2:20
Discussion
Mark explained proposal to dedicate the MW KWR office meeting room. Plans for an
event will be firmed up early in the new year. Committee was supportive.
8. 8. General business
Bruce
2:25
Discussion
Jarrod flagged the upcoming Water Plan pricing review process that will involve KWRL
pricing. It’s about 6 months until the review consultation starts, but something that the
Committee should begin thinking about.
Jarrod also briefly touched on some potential organisational changes under consideration
at MW that could see responsibility & personnel changes for the Special Areas Team.
Changes will be advised at the next committee meeting.
Rosemary posed a few questions:
1. Is Gypsy Creek managed by Melbourne Water?
2. Who in River Health can I speak with concerning permissions given to allowing grey
water to be discharged directly into a drain?
3. New development is resulting in loss of natural wetlands and precluding natural
recharge of aquifers, resulting in more water into the drains. Is this being
considered?
Discussion: Members noted that council is responsible for planning approvals and that
all new development must meet own drainage requirements. Did not believe there were
requirements relating to groundwater recharge. It was noted that Southern Rural Water
had completed a groundwater aquifer study.
Action 5.5: MW to follow up and respond directly to Rosemary.
Con queried what sort of herbicides MW was permitted to use on the drains as there is a
whole range of effective products used by the farmers. Jarrod agreed to follow up with
Con to discuss.
Action 5.6: Jarrod to discuss with Con the range of herbicides able to be considered for
use.
4
Topic
Presenter
9. Next meeting
Bruce / all
Time
allott
2:35
ed
Next formal meeting is scheduled for 1:00 – 3:00pm, Thursday 5 March 2015.
Meeting Close
Bruce Turner
Bruce thanked the Committee and brought the meeting to a
close.
5
2:40