State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
Name:
Organisation: Goulburn-Murray Water
Date: 16/07/2015
Email:
Phone:
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
GMW believes the scope of the SEPP review is not as focused as it could have been, as the efficacy of the current SEPP
has not been thoroughly reviewed via an evaluation process. GMW suggests that an evaluation framework be included
as an integral part of the new SEPP to ensure future reviews are well directed.
Any general comments on the
proposed scope of State Environment
Protection Policy (Waters):
GMW also has a general comment about one of the “Definitions” within the Discussion paper. A Point source of
pollution is defined as a single, identifiable source of pollution, such as a pipe or a drain. This definition may be accurate
for urban stormwater drains, however irrigation drains managed by GMW include many diffuse inputs that are not in
GMW’s control. Surface irrigations drains are merely a formalised natural watercourse, installed to reduce waterlogging
and salinisation of otherwise productive land. GMW suggests that the definition be altered to the following:
“Point source of pollution means a single, identifiable source of pollution, such as a pipe or an urban stormwater drain.”
1
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
GMW roles and responsibilities under the SEPPs (Waters and Groundwaters) is to inform decision making on a range of
activities undertaken across the business, such as aquatic weed management, statutory planning responses,
Environmental Management Systems, salinity and drainage management, salt interception. The SEPP provides guideline
values for common water quality parameters in receiving waterways which GMW uses when assessing applications for
discharges referred to GMW under the Environment Protection Act 1970.
Question 1: What is your
understanding of your roles and
responsibilities under Water SEPPs?
Clause 18 within the current SEPP defined the roles and responsibilities of Water Authorities, however doesn’t cover the
activities of GMW very well. GMW suggests a review of the roles of Water corporation with separate definitions for
urban and rural corporations much like the Water Industry Act 1994 -Statement of Obligations.
In the SEPP there seems to be suitable description of responsibilities and roles for other statutory authorities such as
Councils, EPA, Catchment Management Authorities however GMW believes in practice there seems to be confusion
between agencies as to where their responsibilities and boundaries end. Perhaps therefore, all roles and responsibilities
within the SEPP need to reviewed to ensure clarity and consistency of roles.
As explained in the answer to Question 1, most of the SEPP is applicable to the range of activities undertaken across
GMW. This includes clauses pertaining to wastewater discharges and on-site management, stormwater, salinity,
agricultural activities, segments, beneficial uses and water quality objectives, flows, chemicals, spills, irrigation channels
and drains.
Question 2: What aspects of Water
SEPPs does your organisation currently
use? How could Water SEPPs be
improved to assist your organisation’s
day-to-day operations and longerterm strategic planning?
The SEPP could be improved to highlight the importance in protecting raw water quality as the first step in the multi
barrier approach to ensure safe drinking water for all Victorians (refer to Safe Drinking Water Act 2003).
The SEPP should include responsibilities for waterway managers and operators to monitor the quality of waters with
parameters determined on a risk basis.
GMW believes that the Current SEPP Clause 37, which requires avoidance of herbicides directly to water within Aquatic
Reserves and Highland segments, does not take into account the reality that is faced when noxious aquatic weeds are
discovered within aquatic systems. In many cases the risk of carefully applying herbicides by an experienced operator
within water assets is far lower than the risk of not attempting to control the noxious aquatic weed. GMW suggests that
Clause 37 be reviewed to clarify that a risk/benefit analysis can be performed by certain land managers (not the general
public) which would allow the management of aquatic weeds of State and National significance in waterways.
2
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
Question 3: Do you have any concerns
about the proposed working title of
State Environment Protection Policy
(Waters)? If so, what are they?
GMW has no concerns with the title change.
GMW would have concerns with the separation within the SEPP of “feasible” targets and “aspirational” targets.
What is ‘feasible’ is highly dependent on many variables, particularly levels of funding to government agencies that do
not have their own rate base (CMAs, EPA, departments). This cannot be factored into a policy. We should always aspire
to what is considered the optimum water quality and measure progress against that even if it is long-term. Catchment
management strategies take this approach.
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?
It is important that SEPP has a focus on protecting all the beneficial uses of water, that it is strengthened to ensure water
quality improvement in the long term and that is does not accept water quality decline as an inevitable matter of course.
GMW believes that if “feasible” targets are provided that this will become the new acceptable target/guideline, and the
aspirational targets will be nothing more than a vision of what could be achieved. It would probably not be economically
viable for statutory authorities to achieve water quality levels better than those that are stated as feasible and therefore
would not achieve protection of water and all its beneficial uses. Should there be a separation within the SEPP of
“feasible” targets and “aspirational” targets, GMW considers that there would need to be mandatory offsets required
should an authority decided to meet the lower target.
3
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
GMW does not support the proposed objective of the SEPP if it contains the statement “while providing for economic
and social development”. GMW considers the SEPP to be a document specifically prepared for the protection of water,
its beneficial uses and ultimately water quality.
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?
Balancing water quality objectives with social and economic development should already occur via the Planning and
Environment Act, which has objectives to protect water quality through individual planning schemes, municipal strategic
statements, overlays, state and local planning policy frameworks. It is the responsibility of councils to ensure that their
policies on development are consistent with the objectives and relevant clauses in the SEPP and reflect local issues as
they apply to the specific beneficial uses of waters/groundwaters within their municipalities.
From the GMW perspective, poor water quality can cost the community in many ways, such as the contribution to algal
blooms and threats to the safety of drinking water. Degraded water quality affects the economic and social development
of communities. Both the dependence and impact of communities on good water quality needs better recognition
within the SEPP.
GMW therefore suggests the objective of the SEPP should be “this policy is to protect and improve the quality of
Victoria’s waters”.
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?
GMW understands that there needs to be a balance between economic and social development with overall protection
and improvement of water quality for Victoria’s water environments, however GMW does not believe it is the role of the
SEPP to set the rules for this balance.
GMW strongly supports the revised SEPP retaining a statement about the precautionary principle and being clear in its
policy objectives for water quality.
4
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
There will be numerous challenges in order to balance economic and social development with protecting and improving
water quality and there would need to be a really sound basis of cost versus benefit to manage appropriate trade-offs.
For instance, large improvement of very poor quality water are often achievable at relatively low cost, however it is
harder to make improvements once you get down to the incremental change level and the cost to achieve further
improvements is, by comparison, expensive (diminishing returns).
Question 7: What are the challenges
of balancing economic and social
development with protecting and
improving water quality?
How should we manage the
appropriate trade-offs between them?
There will be challenges with obtaining the social and economic data to determine whether the cost to the environment
is balanced with the cost to development.
GMW considers that the beneficial uses and the numbers of people who directly benefit should be the drivers for
balancing economic and social development whilst protecting and improving water quality. It may be appropriate to set
a different set of objectives and water quality targets in specific catchments that are deemed at risk from irreversible
damage should further development occur.
There are many codes, guidelines and policies in existence that help to provide this balance, they just need to be
appropriately and consistently used by all, in particular statutory authorities (e. water corps, local government, EPA) and
regulators (EPA) need to take a greater role ensuring compliance. If this area was better/more aggressively regulated
there should be limited trade-offs as best practice would always be followed.
GMW considers that one consistent SEPP that applies to all Victorian waters will be a sensible approach to consolidate
the two existing SEPP’s.
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?
GMW believes there is an opportunity to acknowledge the final receiving water for all waters within the state when
setting targets. All the catchments within GMW’s area of operation are received by the River Murray. The beneficial uses
for the River Murray may be different to the beneficial uses for rivers that flow out to sea within Victoria. Although the
River Murray is generally not a Victorian waterway, both Victoria and NSW need to work collaboratively to ensure the
cross border issues are minimised and that Victoria acknowledges the potential impact that poor water quality can have
on interstate (NSW and SA) beneficial uses.
5
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
GMW considers that the SEPP should apply to all interconnected Victorian surface and groundwaters.
Consideration always has to be given to beneficial uses of receiving waters in interconnected systems. If a wastewater
treatment lagoon for instance needs to, either regularly or in an emergency, discharge to directly to surface water then
the beneficial uses of that receiving water needs to be considered, it cannot be excluded.
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?
Waters that are not able to be discharged to other waters should be excluded, such as isolated wastewater treatment
lagoons and salt disposal basins.
The beneficial uses in, for example, irrigation drains and farm reuse dams are quite different to that in rivers (eg. High
nutrient levels may be valuable) and should be treated differently or have no beneficial use assigned under SEPP WoV, as
is currently the case.
Salt disposal basins should not have beneficial uses protected as they are part of salinity control operations under the
Murray Darling Basin Salinity Management Strategy eg. Lake Tutchewop near Kerang.
GMW considers that the current measures for classifying surface water and groundwater segments are reasonable
however we supports the use and further exploration of sub-segments.
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?
In particular the discussion paper proposes a new “Lakes” segment in figure 6, but it is not discussed within the text of
the paper. GMW would be supportive of specific targets and guidelines for Lakes, especially if those guidelines
acknowledges the lakes within forested catchments (the east) would have different guidelines than those in more
developed catchments (the west).
There should also be consideration for an “irrigation area” segment or sub-segment that would cover water corporation
managed assets such as those within the GMW region and the Macalister Irrigation District.
6
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
Question 11: Are there any problems
with the spatial arrangements or
segment boundaries in the existing
Water SEPPs? If so, what are they?
The current SEPP boundaries have on occasion made it difficult for GMW to classify our lakes when there are multiple
SEPP segments within the lake catchment. The addition of a separate “lakes” segment would help this issue.
GMW supports the proposed approach which includes segments for Lakes and wetlands and a basis based on the
beneficial uses and human induced changes to the landscape.
Question 12: What do you think are
the advantages or problems with the
new approach to segments and subsegments?
The inclusion of lakes and wetlands will enable the assessment of storages within the GMW region against specific
guidelines. Currently the water quality within storages can only be assessed against the guidelines for rivers and
streams, presumably a “lakes” segment would acknowledge the differences in targets for parameters that occur when
managing a lake as opposed to a flowing river.
GMW considers there would need to be a clear definition of “lake” versus “wetland” as within the GMW area there are
water bodies which are RAMSAR listed wetlands but which are also “lakes” used as storages primarily for irrigation
purposes.
Question 13: Are there any features of
the landscape that you would like to
see as a standalone segment or subsegment?
There should also be consideration for an “irrigation area” segment or sub-segment that would cover water corporation
managed assets such as those within the GM Irrigation District and the Macalister Irrigation District.
7
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
GMW believes that all beneficial uses set out in Table 2 of the discussion paper should still be protected under the new
SEPP.
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?
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?
GMW considers there may be further beneficial uses that could be considered within the “Aquatic Reserves” however
the corporation is unclear of the exact definition of Aquatic Reserves. Further beneficial uses for Aquatic Reserves may
be: potable water supplies, human consumption after treatment, agriculture and irrigation, stock watering, aquaculture;
and agriculture, parks and gardens.
Additionally GMW believes that potable water supplies and stock watering should be added to the beneficial uses of
“Rivers” and human consumption after treatment and agriculture and irrigation should be added to “Groundwater”.
GMW believes that methodology used by Melbourne Water would be impractical to apply across the GMW region,
consideration of each catchment and/or storage rather than individual waterways would be an acceptable approach with
GMW.
GMW does not consider that the SEPP should get too concerned about trying to make the method of segments and
beneficial uses fit the needs and complexities of every individual situation or circumstance. The SEPP should give the
relevant statutory authority the ability to determine the approach or method which best works for that particular
situation.
As previously mentioned in response to Question 14, GMW considers there may be further beneficial uses that could be
considered within the “Aquatic Reserves” however the corporation is unclear of the exact definition of Aquatic Reserves.
Further beneficial uses for Aquatic Reserves may be: potable water supplies, human consumption after treatment,
agriculture and irrigation, stock watering, aquaculture; and agriculture, parks and gardens.
Additionally GMW believes that potable water supplies and stock watering should be added to the beneficial of “Rivers”
and human consumption after treatment and agriculture and irrigation should be added to “Groundwater”.
There are no beneficial uses relevant to GMW area of operations that should not be protected.
8
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
GMW believes the current indicators and the approach for deriving objectives are adequate, however the corporation is
particularly pleased that page 22 of the discussion paper indicates that there will be significantly more parameters within
the SEPP with targets and guidelines. Currently GMW uses the ANZECC guidelines for those parameters not outlined in
the SEPP; the use of Victorian catchment specific guidelines will give a better indication of water quality for those
parameters with GMW’s region.
Question 17: What do you think about
the current indicators, the approach
for deriving objectives and the
proposed changes?
GMW believes, however, there should be a review of the parameters listed in terms of what can actually be/is monitored
by commercial laboratories. Dissolved inorganic phosphorous is an example of the difference between what can be and
what is monitored. GMW tests for filterable reactive phosphorous (FRP), this would largely be made up of dissolved
inorganic phosphorous as the water is filtered so all phosphorous that is bound to organic particles are removed. There
would still be however, a very small percentage of FRP that would be dissolved organic phosphorous. A SEPP guideline
value specifically developed for dissolved inorganic phosphorous would not be as useful as a guideline value for FRP.
GMW believes consultation with water authorities of parameters that are regularly and readily tested for would be
beneficial.
GMW also supports the proposed review of the objectives to be science based and relate to the specific segments.
There needs to be transparent scientific evidence provided on how modelling of reference sites occurs. If this isn’t
understood up front then it has the potential to cause ongoing dispute through the life of the SEPP.
GMW considers that objectives should be set and based on beneficial use and believes that Table 3 of the current SEPP
for Groundwaters is a good basis for this to occur.
9
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
GMW considers that nutrient load targets have been useful to give an indication of potential longer term risks to water
quality due to sediment quality causing for example algal blooms.
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?
Nutrient load targets have worked well for GMW when considering nutrients within irrigation drains as they provide a
simple, additive measure that can be used at different scales.
Given that nutrient concentration is required in order to determine loads GMW believes that both approaches can be
readily used when flow data is available. In fact, GMW believes that each cannot be used in isolation and must be used
as a combination. If only load was considered, this could result in periodic discharging of water with extremely high
nutrient concentration that would severely impact on receiving waters.
GMW considers that for identified “at risk” areas within segment/sub segments that the SEPP could specify what
activities could or couldn’t occur within them. For example the Planning and Environment Act or DELWP
Guidelines/Practice Notes could be used to inform development controls and objectives where activities were allowed.
Question 19: What is the preferred
method for management of at-risk
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?
GMW regards the growth of unsewered development as a threat to water quality within the catchments it administers.
The risks of nutrient contamination from septic tanks is primarily the density of on-site domestic wastewater
management systems and although Clause 32 of the SEPP currently specifies that councils should prepare Domestic
Wastewater Management Plans (DWMP) there has been no regulation of this – no enforcement when councils don’t
have a DWMP, no auditing and no requirement for councils to report on their DWMP progress. When balancing the cost
of implementing a DWMP within their current resources, councils appear reluctant to allocate budget and remain
unaccountable in this specific area of septic tank management. Some mandatory reporting from council to a regulator,
such as EPA, would be a useful way to encourage action on this issue.
In addition to increased regulation of DWMP and septic tanks, GMW considers that the SEPP could include a guideline
value for density of unsewered development within segments and sub segments. The density guideline value could vary
depending on the segment and sub segment, current density of development, risk and beneficial uses.
The Irrigation Drainage MoU is in essence something that seeks to put a framework around improvement/reducing
impact on receiving waters. A CMA Water Quality Strategy or equivalent is a good model within irrigation areas to
address risks and drivers to water quality.
10
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Response to questions from discussion paper – Goulburn-Murray Water
We agree there needs to be a mechanism for escalation of government response within SEPP. Start at the
voluntary/partnership approach and move to more regulatory approach if no progress or cooperation.
Triggers need to be clearly defined and understood. It appears that the triggers will be the reference site quality
parameters derived from modelling. Some/many segments will not be at the objective levels now, so is the trigger some
set deviation/variance from the objectives or a rate of change away from it?
GMW believes that it is essential for the SEPP to identify and fill key knowledge gaps over the life of the policy.
GMW considers that the current SEPP review is not as focused as it could have been as the efficacy of the SEPP has not
been thoroughly reviewed throughout the life of the policy.
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)?
GMW suggests that an evaluation framework be included as an integral part of the SEPP to ensure future reviews are
well directed. Reviews should also involve regional stakeholders/agencies and utilise existing catchment strategies and
related studies.
GMW also recommends the SEPP include a mechanism of keeping up to date as scientific knowledge changes. However,
GMW notes this need for scientific currency must be balanced against a stable policy which statutory authorities can use
and rely upon in order to make decisions. A five year review of the SEPP and its implementation efficacy may be an
appropriate timeframe for a scientific review.
It appears that at a sub-segment scale the revised SEPP may have greater adaptability, which could be useful when
making changes in particular areas as knowledge gaps are filled.
Any other information you would like
to share:
Comment on implementation plans: Will these plans flag areas (sub-segments) that might need to undergo significant
change under the new SEPP? Will these utilise existing regional catchment strategies and bodies to minimise
duplication?
11