August 2011
6

© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2011.
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the owner of the copyright in the publication.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the MAV.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed to Claudia Laidlaw at claidlaw@mav.asn.au
The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print, Braille and audio.
While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils. This submission has been endorsed by the MAV Board as suitable for distribution and comment to members.

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
1.1
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 4
2 Terms of Reference ................................................................................................ 5
2.1
(a) identifying best practice and emerging technology for flood mitigation and monitoring infrastructure including river gauges; .......................................................... 5
2.2
(b) the management of levees across Victoria, including ownership, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private land; .............................................................. 7
2.3
(c) waterways management, including the nature and extent of vegetation clearing activities within waterways and their general maintenance; .......................................... 9
2.4
(d) identifying those entities and individuals having ownership of waterways and the responsibility for their clearing and their maintenance; ............................................... 11
2.5
(e) the extent to which, if any, local knowledge of residents is employed in effecting waterways clearing and maintenance. ........................................................................ 15
3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 16
4 References ............................................................................................................ 17
2

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the
State Parliament’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee Inquiry into Flood
Mitigation Infrastructure in Victoria .
Victoria has experienced several severe flood events in the last 12 months. The January-
February 2011 floods, including the storms and flooding in the aftermath of cyclones Anthony and Yasi, affected a majority of councils across the State. Close to 30 municipalities and 100 townships were directly impacted by the January floods. More than 6,000 requests for assistance were received by the State Emergency Service from across 70 municipalities during the February storms and flash floods.
The MAV is aware that a number of municipalities have lodged individual submissions to the
ENRC Inquiry. The MAV submission does not aim to explore all available flood mitigation solutions. Rather, it focuses on the broad mitigation themes MAV member councils have identified as issues that arose during and after the 2010-11 flood events. This submission is based on consultation with flood-affected member councils.
3


A review of the Water Act , Local Government Act and the Catchment and Land
Protection Act to clarify responsibilities for the maintenance of waterways, creeks, floodways, drains and other essential water management and flood mitigation infrastructure.

A state-wide assessment of levees, weirs and channels to determine what assets are owned by each agency, and subsequently what should be maintained, upgraded or decommissioned.

An integrated approach to waterway management be adopted, which should also support flood mitigation activities as required.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) ensure that, through CMAs and other relevant agencies (such as Melbourne Water): o Funding for strategic, detailed flood studies cover the entire catchment including urban areas, rather than just the major waterways, using a common methodology across Victoria. o Studies map existing levees (both publicly and private owned) and any other mitigation infrastructure, to provide a more accurate picture of floodwater behaviour and allow councils to plan more effectively for flood events. o CMAs provide, on request, property-specific flood cards that advise of potential flood water levels.

The MAV supports the direction of DSE in developing the Victorian Strategy for Healthy
Rivers, Estuaries and Wetlands to: o coordinate a state-wide process to identify areas where there is a high risk to human safety or public infrastructure from waterway processes, and o develop a risk based approach to identify priority actions to address serious threats to human safety and public infrastructure.

Consideration be given to an increase in targeted funding for CMAs, so that they can undertake essential waterway management planning, maintenance and repair work as required, with greater oversight by DSE.

Development of a flood warden best practice model, with municipalities given the opportunity to identify, engage and train flood wardens as part of their flood preparation strategy.
4

2.1.1 Flood Studies & Flood Plans
Under the Water Act (1989) Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and Melbourne
Water have specific functions that require them to find out how far floodwaters are likely to extend and how high they are likely to rise. They are also required to provide advice about flooding and controls on development to local councils, the Secretary of the Department of
Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the community. The 2010-11 floods exposed significant variance in the quality, detail and coverage of flood studies undertaken by local
CMAs.
Some municipalities had access to detailed, thorough flood studies that proved to be useful, providing a high degree of accuracy during the recent flood events. Others found that there was a lack of historical flood information available from the CMA, which made planning and preparation difficult. Most flood studies do not cover an entire catchment area. In addition, there is a focus on riverine flooding with no account for landscape flooding, which was common during the 2010-11 flood events and urban areas.
Councils acknowledge that water behaviour can be different in every flood event, but thorough flood studies allow municipalities to reduce risk by taking a proactive approach to planning for flood events and in communicating risk , rather than a passive ‘watch and see’ strategy.
Some municipalities were able to activate urgent flood preparation action plans based on staff and community member knowledge of town levees, weirs and previous flood events.
Flood studies could be improved by incorporating ‘action plans’ so that effective, planned and understood, physical preparations can be carried out ahead of an event.
2.1.2 Gauges & Flood Level Descriptions
Councils reported some issues with river gauges during the 2010-11 flood events.
The number of river gauges and their effectiveness varies greatly between catchment areas.
Some municipalities had local residents monitor flood levels and gauges hourly throughout the events, and phone the data through to the local Municipal Emergency Coordination
Centre (MECC) so that emergency management staff could measure the volume, direction and velocity of water. Some municipalities have kept their own records of this flood data for future planning and mitigation.
The centralised collection of river gauge information by the Bureau of Meteorology and the timeliness of subsequent warnings have been reported as inconsistent and often inadequate for municipal emergency management planning and response. The dissemination of this vital information was often slow or in some cases did not occur at all.
Many municipalities also advise that the use of Australian Height Datum (AHD) to describe flood levels caused significant confusion amongst local residents unfamiliar with the terminology. The use of AHD in Victoria State Emergency Service (SES) flood warnings without providing additional local gauge/landmark context caused significant concern because of the seemingly large numbers of this information. Whilst farmers and council officers who regularly use AHD tend to prefer it, there is a need to regularly explain this methodology and terminology so that a consistent approach to communicating predicted flood levels is easier for non-expert audiences to understand.
5

2.1.3 Flood Warnings
Councils have stressed the need for timely and accurate flood intelligence and warnings in the lead-up to an event. Municipalities also report that the ‘one in 100 year’ or ‘one in 200 year’ flood event terminology was poorly understood by many local residents and caused unnecessary anxiety.
The quality of advice and flood prediction provided by CMAs varied greatly: some was very accurate, some was incorrect and in other cases the CMA did not have the capacity to provide any information at all. Municipalities report that where formal arrangements for flood warnings failed, the municipality took responsibility for advising local residents using a variety of methods including door-knocking and local radio station broadcasts.
Councils also reported a number of examples in which the Emergency Alert telephone messaging system advised residents to prepare to evacuate, when there was no need. In other cases, the Emergency Alerts were inaccurate, incomplete, unclear or not specific enough. The MAV and councils are concerned that if the basis for the warnings is unsound, or if they are issued incorrectly, the community will become immune to alerts in the future.
2.1.4 Recommendations
Municipalities have limited capacity to undertake riverine and landscape flood studies.
Given the widespread nature of the flooding events in 2010-11, the MAV recommends DSE ensure that, through CMAs and other relevant agencies (such as Melbourne Water), funding be provided for strategic, detailed flood studies that cover the entire catchment including urban areas, rather than just the major waterways, using a common methodology across
Victoria.
These studies should also map existing levees (both publicly and private owned) and other mitigation infrastructure, to provide an accurate picture of floodwater behaviour and allow councils to plan more effectively for flood events.
The MAV recommends that, on request, CMAs provide property-specific flood cards that advise of potential flood water levels.
6

The 2010-11 flood events have reinforced the need for clarity regarding levee, weir and channel/drain ownership and maintenance.
2.2.1 Town Levees
The presence, condition and age of town levees varies from municipality to municipality. Not all flood prone towns in rural Victoria have a levee system. Some regional councils do not own or maintain any town levees. Other municipalities have a small number of town levees that are maintained by the shire and/or a committee of management.
In the January 2011 floods, a small number of regional municipalities undertook the decision to construct emergency levees along township riverbanks in order to protect hundreds of homes.
A number of municipalities advise that in past decades, the State Government transferred town levee assets to council without any recurrent funding for maintenance.
Generally, in respect of town levees municipalities advised that:

Their location is known and recorded, generally contained within town boundaries

They are constructed to a known standard with government funding

They protect public assets, infrastructure and essential services

They are generally maintained and repaired by municipalities
2.2.2 Rural Levees
Throughout the last century, rural levees were constructed in flood-prone areas across
Victoria, both on private and public land. These levees have been built by various government departments, private landholders and municipalities. Ownership and responsibility for rural levees has shuffled between levels of government over the decades, and clarity over who is responsible for them has become blurred. These levees can have an enormous effect on the path and behaviour of flood water during an event.
Regional municipalities advise that they have never been responsible for maintaining rural levees and that the cost of maintaining them is well beyond their financial capacity.
Generally, in respect of rural levees municipalities advised that:

Their locations are often unknown or not recorded, usually on private property or
Crown land

Responsibility for their maintenance and repair is unclear

Their design and standard of construction are not known or regulated

They were generally built to protect private agricultural land, not public assets

The effectiveness and consequences of rural levees are largely untested until a flood event
2.2.3 Town Weirs
Flood mitigation infrastructure is not limited to levees. Many regional municipalities own, operate, maintain and insure town weirs. Whilst their original water management purpose has been superseded by other water management systems, they are now primarily used to create river amenity for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
Municipalities generally consult the local CMA regarding the operation of the town weir, particularly when flood warnings have been issued. A number of councils are uncertain of the
CMA’s authority to issue directives regarding the operation of the weir and the release of
7

water, but have reached informal collaborative agreements. Accountability for the consequences of the release of water from these weirs is uncertain.
2.2.4 Rural Weirs
Rural councils report that it is also unclear who is responsible for the management and maintenance of rural weirs outside of townships. Some are managed by a DSE appointed
Committee of Management, with the weir forming one aspect of their responsibilities across an area of public amenity such as a park or reserve.
Many old rural weirs have fallen into disrepair, and there is anecdotal evidence of farmers attempting to divert existing waterways using this redundant infrastructure. The consequences of the dilapidated and altered state of this infrastructure has not been apparent due to a prolonged period of drought. The recent floods have demonstrated the need for a comprehensive assessment of water management infrastructure on rural land, and the way in which it interacts with other physical features of the flood plain.
2.2.5 Channels & Drains
Similar to the case of rural levees and weirs, clarity over the ownership, operation and maintenance of rural channels and drains is also needed.
The completion of the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline project has precipitated a debate over the future use of decommissioned channels. Member councils advise that some farmers want the channels filled in for use as arable land. Others argue that the channels have become part of the floodplain and drainage system. It is argued that decommissioning them too quickly could have an adverse effect on floodwater behaviour.
In reality, channels can reduce or increase the impact of floodwater, depending on the volume, speed and direction of the flow. The channel walls can also act as a levee and direct water in a particular course. Municipalities advise that in some areas there is tension between the local CMA and water authority regarding channel asset ownership, management and liability. There is currently no consensus regarding the best course of action, and Channel Decommissioning Reference Groups have been established in northern and western Victoria to resolve these matters.
Councils report a lack of clarity regarding the agency responsible for owning, clearing and maintaining rural drains, many of which have become overgrown after a decade of drought.
A number of regional councils advise that they have inherited a variety of drain assets that were installed by the State Government, the local CMA, water or irrigation authority, or private landholders throughout the last century. Some regional councils in northern Victoria have also recently formally received a transfer of channel/drain assets from the local CMA, for incorporation into the local drainage scheme.
2.2.6 Recommendations
The MAV recommends a state-wide assessment of current levees, weirs and channels to determine what assets are owned by each agency, and subsequently what should be maintained, upgraded or decommissioned.
The MAV recommends that a review of the Water Act , Local Government Act and the
Catchment and Land Protection Act be undertaken to clarify responsibilities for the maintenance of waterways, creeks, floodways, drains and other essential water management and flood mitigation infrastructure. Further, once these issues have been clarified, a source of funding should be identified to cover operation, renewal and maintenance costs.
8

Consultation with councils has shown that there is no agreed position regarding the distinction between rural waterways and drains, nor is there consensus regarding the clearance of waterways for flood preparation/mitigation purposes. Local opinion (residents, municipalities, CMAs and DSE regional officers) is divided between those who view waterways primarily as drains that should be cleared to allow efficient and rapid water flow during a flood, and those that believe waterways should be left in their natural state for environmental purposes.
There is also a lack of consensus regarding the effectiveness of clearing living and dead vegetation from waterways, and whether it actually improves the movement of floodwater or may shift the impact of floods to other areas. Some municipalities argue that the build-up of vegetation at the waterway entrance diminished the flow capacity and adversely affected downstream mitigation efforts, while other councils found that heavily vegetated waterways coped reasonably well with large volumes of floodwater.
Under Part 10 – Waterway Management – of the Water Act 1989 , CMAs are responsible for decisions regarding the clearing of waterways.
1 Municipalities must seek permission to carry out any clearing works. Feedback from councils indicates that some CMAs are better at maintaining these waterways than others. DSE guidance and direction for CMAs is necessary to improve consistency.
2.3.1 Balancing the benefits of riparian vegetation for waterway health with human safety during flood events
Riparian (living) vegetation has clear benefits that improve waterway health. It protects the stability of stream beds and banks, filters out sediment, nutrients, chemicals and other wastes from contaminated surface runoff, provides shading, shelter and a source of food for aquatic ecosystems and provides important habitat for land animals and birds.
During the 2010-11 floods, some communities reported that woody debris in waterways caused increased flood inundation in townships. This has precipitated a debate regarding the benefits of riparian and in stream vegetation for waterway health versus the importance of human safety during flooding events.
There is research that argues that the impact of riparian vegetation on flooding is not significant, and can have a localised negative effect whilst having an overall positive impact on flood impact across the catchment.
2 However, evidence provided by some municipalities suggests that this localised negative impact can be significant and this needs to be managed for the safety and protection of the community.
CMAs develop and implement river protection and restoration programs in accordance with the priorities of the Victorian Government endorsed Regional Catchment Strategies and
River Health Strategies and in partnership with local communities 3 . These strategies are focused on ensuring water quality and the riparian habitat of rivers and streams is maintained and enhanced.
1
Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents, Water Act 1989 Part 10 Waterway Management, Division 7 – By-laws , http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/wa198983/ , p495.
2
Anderson, Brett. Will replanting vegetation along river banks make floods worse?
(Cooperative Research Centre for
Catchment Hydrology, 2006) http://www.riversymposium.com/2006/index.php?element=3
3 Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management (Melbourne, 2007) http://www.water.vic.gov.au/environment/rivers/guidelines/waterway-management
9

The MAV participates on the stakeholder reference committee for the Victorian Strategy for
Healthy Rivers, Estuaries and Wetlands.
2.3.2 Recommendation
The MAV supports the direction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment in developing the Victorian Strategy for Healthy Rivers, Estuaries and Wetlands to:

coordinate a state-wide process to identify areas where there is a high risk to human safety or public infrastructure from waterway processes, and

develop a risk based approach to identify priority actions to address serious threats to human safety and public infrastructure.
10

Despite the clear CMA responsibilities outlined in the Water Act 1989, 4 municipalities advise that there is a lack of clarity regarding which agency owns rural waterways and who is responsible for their maintenance. In reality, municipalities are often expected to maintain waterways within rural townships (largely driven by amenity and aesthetic outcomes) and
CMAs maintain waterway assets outside towns. In the absence of a clearly defined owner, local landholders have been known to undertake clearing in rural waterways without appropriate authority.
Riparian land management is the business of several different agencies. This includes the
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), the Department of Primary Industry
(DPI), Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and Melbourne Water, Rural Water
Authorities, Parks Victoria, and municipalities (in their roles as local government, as Crown land Committees of Management, as drainage authorities, and as administrators of Planning
Schemes). Local communities are also involved both as landowners (including those who are tenants of Crown frontages), and through voluntary community-based support groups such as LandCare. The complexity of these arrangements inevitably leads to conflict in roles, interpretation of responsibilities and inefficiency in effort.
2.4.1 Lack of Role Clarity for CMAs
After more than a decade of drought, the 2010-11 floods have revealed a lack of clarity regarding the body responsible for maintaining and repairing flood mitigation infrastructure.
During and after the flood events, municipalities report that disputes occurred over levee, weir and drainage ownership, management and repair between CMAs, State Government departments and municipalities. This confusion highlights the need for a state-wide assessment of all mitigation infrastructure, and clear decisions regarding ownership, maintenance and liability.
Below are sections from the Water Act and the DSE website regarding the responsibilities of
Catchment Management Authorities. The tasks attributed to municipalities by DSE are not necessarily founded in legislation and should be reviewed as part of a broader reassessment of agency responsibilities.
The Water Act 1989 states that Catchment Management Authorities have the following responsibilities:
202 Floodplain management functions
An Authority (other than Melbourne Water Corporation) has the following functions or such of those functions as are specified in the Order under section 201(1)(b)(ii), as the case requires —
(a) to find out how far floodwaters are likely to extend and how high they are likely to rise;
(b) to declare flood levels and flood fringe areas;
(c) to declare building lines;
(d) to control developments that have occurred or that may be proposed for land adjoining waterways;
(e) to develop and implement plans and to take any action necessary to minimise flooding and flood damage;
(f) to provide advice about flooding and controls on development to local councils, the
Secretary to the Department and the community
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/wa198983/
According to DSE, the roles of CMAs in relation to floodplain management are to:

Develop, oversee and, where appropriate, implement regional floodplain
4 management strategies, which integrate local floodplain management issues and
Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents, Water Act 1989 Part 10 Waterway Management, Division 7
– By-laws
, p495. the region

Support and facilitate the implementation of regional land use planning measures to
11 reduce the future growth of flood risk and flood damages and, in particular, to provide input to planning schemes, respond to planning referrals, provide flood advice and help resolve planning issues


Support and facilitate the implementation of regional flood warning systems
Maintain and enhance regional flood information and coordinate monitoring of

2.4.2 CMA Capacity & Resourcing – resource depleted organisations
Municipalities advise that the recent flood events highlighted a significant variance in the capacity and resourcing of local CMAs. Some councils report that the local CMA was able to meet its obligations to provide useful warnings, predictions and real-time updates ahead of the flood impact, while others struggled to establish contact and gain vital flood level information in time.
Under the Water Act 1989 (Vic), CMAs are responsible for minimisation of flood risks and costs whilst preserving natural features of the floodplain. To do this they have regional waterway, floodplain, drainage and environmental water reserve management powers.
5
However, many municipalities report that CMAs simply do not have the capacity or resources to undertake the volume of work expected of them. This under-resourcing was patently clear in those instances where a CMA did not have a system for monitoring water levels in order to produce the flood level predictions and intelligence that feed into emergency management planning and response.
Feedback from municipalities indicates that in many cases, CMAs were only able to provide general information ahead of flood events, with no capacity to make specific and localised flood level predictions. Municipalities were expected to have expert local knowledge of river gauge reading and flood prediction capabilities – both of which are well beyond the scope of local government responsibilities in a flood event.
5
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, A Governance Guide to the Victorian Water Industry (Melbourne,
February 2011) http://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/106398/Governance-Guide-Print-update2a.pdf
, p.1.
12

2.4.3 CMA Engagement
Consultation with flood-affected municipalities has shown a varying degree of engagement with local CMAs before, during and after the 2010-11 flood events.
Under the Community Engagement section of the Statement of Obligations, CMAs are required to “…develop, maintain and enhance strategic partnerships with regional service deliverers for implementation of Regional River Health Strategies, floodplain and drainage programs.” 6
Some municipalities have reported good engagement with the CMA regarding flood planning and response. This is often based on pre-existing working relationships between CMA and council officers. In some cases, the absence of a formal/official flood level prediction dissemination procedure (via the control agency) was ameliorated by direct local officer interactions. This proved to be invaluable as it enabled the provision of informal/unofficial flood level prediction information resulting in improved speed and quality of decision making for municipal emergency management staff.
Other municipalities reported minimal or no contact with the local CMA before and during the flood events, despite frequent efforts to establish a line of communication. This was a source of frustration for councils that were fielding frequent calls from residents seeking information about predicted flood levels.
This varying engagement and inefficient communication channels exposes CMAs, municipalities and ultimately the community to increased risk during a flood event.
2.4.4 Waterway Management Responsibilities
Waterway management in Victoria is guided by multiple pieces of legislation, policies, strategies and plans. Municipal councils have a wide range of responsibilities and functions in floodplain management. Relevant legislation includes the Planning and Environment Act
1987, the Local Government Act 1989, the Building Act 1993 and the Emergency
Management Act 1986 .
Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 , councils are a planning authority (strategic) and a responsible authority (statutory). As a planning authority, with input from water authorities and CMAs, councils identify in planning schemes areas of a high likelihood of flooding (riverine and localised) and use of zoning and overlay controls to regulate what and how land use or development may occur.
A lack of accurate spatial data, modelling of likely scenarios and resources available to councils for strategic planning often hinders this process. To improve this, state and regional data and modelling of hazard should be provided to councils as part of the state planning policy framework with an obligation for the state or their agent to regularly review and update these flood hazard maps.
Increasingly councils are adopting water sensitive urban design (WSUD) across a range of council functions including capital works, land use planning; environmental protection; open space management; as well as urban water resource (conservation) management policies.
Councils take a practical approach to incorporating WSUD into their policy and operations.
This is seen by the use of vegetated swales and buffer strips as a replacement or substitute for traditional forms of drainage and the use of wetlands, ponds and retarding basins for flood retardation, water storage and to provide amenity.
6 Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, A Governance Guide to the Victorian Water Industry (Melbourne,
February 2011) http://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/106398/Governance-Guide-Print-update2a.pdf
, p.6.
13

In relation to flood management, municipalities are expected to undertake local emergency recovery support, clean-up, repairs and maintenance. However there is a lack of clarity between those responsible for waterway management and the general duty of municipalities to coordinate clean up as part of their broader role in recovery activities.
7 Responsibility for waterway management should be consistent before, during and after emergencies.
They are also expected to manage local drains from roads and properties that feed into regional drains, rivers and creeks, as well as being responsible for managing stormwater pollution and providing community education. In the metropolitan area, councils are reasonably resourced and supported by Melbourne Water, which is able to charge a regulated headworks charge for new development placing an additional burden on the metropolitan stormwater drainage system. However, in rural councils and regional cities, similar contributions must be negotiated and require more effort by councils to collect adequate capital contributions.
2.4.5 Recommendations
The unclear ownership and management of riparian land and waterways between CMAs, municipalities, Committees of Management, DSE, Parks Victoria and private landholders makes flood planning and response difficult. The MAV recommends that an integrated approach to waterway management be adopted, which should also support flood mitigation activities as required.
The under-resourcing of CMAs exposes them to increased risk and leaves them unable to deliver on their obligations, which has a direct consequence for councils. The MAV recommends an increase in targeted funding for CMAs be considered, so that they can undertake essential waterway management planning, maintenance and repair work as required, with greater oversight by DSE.
7
Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV), Part 7 Emergency
Management Agency Roles , http://www.oesc.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/OESC/resources/d/c/dc0d348040569967bf2fbfe505682c73/Part+7+EMMV.
pdf , p7-60.
14

Municipalities found a number of ways to use residents’ local knowledge to prepare for and respond to the 2010-11 flood events.
Some regional municipalities used (formal and informal) flood wardens to watch, record and report local flood levels and to provide advice regarding previous flood events to the MECC.
Not all municipalities have flood wardens. There is a need to determine which agency is responsible for them, as it is currently unclear. A number of municipalities that successfully utilise flood wardens suggest that responsibility for them should rest with the local council, as the wardens are usually local residents who are known to the council emergency management staff.
Some municipalities advise that the SES discounted/ignored advice from local flood wardens, (or from some locals with substantial historical knowledge), which was seen by the council to be a waste of a valuable local resource. Councils report that there is a two-fold benefit to flood wardens, the role gives local residents a meaningful task during the crisis, and utilising locals to undertake manual gauge reading provides real time information to back up automated data collection.
However, it should be noted that the recent flood events have shown that local knowledge can have a down side. Not all local knowledge based on individuals’ memories is as accurate as is at first believed. The reliability of some advice detracted for the general perception of value and usefulness of local knowledge provided.
2.5.1 Recommendation
The MAV recommends that a flood warden best practice model be developed, and that municipalities be given the opportunity to identify, engage and train flood wardens as part of their flood preparation strategy.
15

The Victorian flood events of 2010-11 have presented an important opportunity to define and clarify responsibility for and maintenance of flood mitigation infrastructure across the State.
This should not be limited to physical infrastructure. Flood studies, modelling and mapping also form an important part of flood preparedness. Comprehensive flood mapping should be carried out in a strategic way with appropriate funding for CMAs and coordination by DSE.
In addition to this, an integrated approach to waterway management must be adopted. This management should also support flood mitigation activities as required.
As a first step, a review of relevant legislation should be undertaken, to bring it up to date with modern standards and to provide clear definition of responsibilities, ownership and roles for agencies, departments and municipalities.
16

Anderson, Brett. Will replanting vegetation along river banks make floods worse?
(Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, 2006) http://www.riversymposium.com/2006/index.php?element=3
Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, Emergency Management Manual Victoria
(EMMV), Part 7 Emergency Management Agency Roles , http://www.oesc.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/OESC/resources/d/c/dc0d348040569967bf2fbfe5
05682c73/Part+7+EMMV.pdf
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, A Governance Guide to the
Victorian Water Industry (Melbourne, February 2011) http://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/106398/Governance-Guide-Printupdate2a.pdf
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Floodplains Roles and
Responsibilities , http://www.water.vic.gov.au/environment/floodplains/responsibilities
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Statement of Obligations for
Catchment Management Authorities (Melbourne, October 2006) http://www.water.vic.gov.au/governance/catchment_management_authorities/statement_of_obligation s
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Technical Guidelines for Waterway
Management (Melbourne, 2007) http://www.water.vic.gov.au/environment/rivers/guidelines/waterway-management
Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents, Water Act 1989 , http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/wa198983/
17