Environment and Natural Resources Committee:
Parliamentary Inquiry into Flood Mitigation
Infrastructure in Victoria
Introduction
The Environment and Natural Resources Committee (the Committee) has conducted a
parliamentary inquiry into flood mitigation infrastructure in Victoria (the Inquiry). The
Inquiry received 30 submissions from Victorian councils and the Municipal Association of
Victoria (MAV).
The report outlines 40 recommendations that the Committee believes, if implemented, will
substantially improve the mitigation of floods in Victoria, and in particular, the way all levees
and waterways are managed in the future. The recommendations focus specifically on:
 levees: ownership, management and maintenance responsibilities
 waterways: ownership, management and maintenance approaches
 legal issues including liability
 local knowledge, community engagement and education
 water storages, and
 flood monitoring infrastructure.
The Victorian Government has until 1 March 2013 to respond to this report. In the interim the
MAV will be working with the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) regarding
recommendations from both this report and the 2011 Victorian Flood Review (VFR).
Key Points
1. The MAV welcomes this inquiry and recognises the important role flood mitigation
infrastructure can play in minimising flood damage. The MAV however emphasises
that flood mitigation infrastructure is only one of a range of options available to
manage the economic, social and environmental effects of flooding. Decisions
regarding flood management actions should consider all available options, including
mitigation infrastructure, to determine the most effective and efficient solution for the
broader catchment area.
2. The MAV is concerned that the beneficiary pays principle may be applied in a
manner that imposes a significant and inequitable financial strain on councils and
ratepayers. Narrowly defining ‘beneficiaries’ as the immediate community does not
recognise the broader benefits of flood mitigation infrastructure across adjacent
communities, the broader public and the Victorian Government. An individual or
community’s level of flood protection should not be determined by their ability to pay.
Moving to a beneficiary pays system constitutes a significant change in policy and an
increase in costs to many communities that must be recognised.
3. Discussion relating to drainage should not be separate from considerations of other
flood mitigation infrastructure. Just as flood mitigation infrastructure needs to be
considered against a range of flood management options on a whole-of-catchment
basis, consideration of specific flood mitigation infrastructure should consider all
available options and combinations including urban and rural drainage and coastal
inundation.
1
4. The MAV agrees that Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) need to be
confirmed as the responsible authority for the management and maintenance of
waterways, and be empowered and obligated to appropriately balance environmental
and flood management objectives. This will end the incongruity of CMAs having the
responsibility to act but not the obligation. CMAs need to be suitably funded to
undertake this obligation.
5. The MAV strongly supports enacting legislation to provide protection from legal
liability for public authorities conducting works on priority levees. Liability has been a
long-standing issue and the MAV would welcome legal indemnity enshrined in
legislation when an authorised public authority is undertaking levee works in good
faith.
6. The MAV strongly disagrees with Recommendation 4.7. Councils should not be
made responsible for the inspection of new levees to ensure they do not adversely
affect other landholders. Councils are not the floodplain manager and do not have
whole-of-catchment knowledge of new or modified levees, nor do they have the
resources to undertake an ongoing compliance monitoring regime.
Context
The Inquiry references a number of other reports and upcoming reviews, demonstrating the
amount of work underway in relation to flooding in Victoria and the level of work ahead to
finalise arrangements. One of the reviews mentioned throughout the Inquiry is the review of
the Victoria Flood Management Strategy (1998). The MAV expects this to commence in
early 2013 and issues relevant to councils such as the ownership, management and
maintenance responsibilities for flood mitigation infrastructure will be further addressed
throughout this review. Councils and the MAV will have the chance to provide input into this
work.
The Inquiry makes a number of recommendations that are relevant to local government. Of
greatest significance are the recommendations that councils should be responsible for urban
levees and that funding for ongoing maintenance costs for all flood mitigation infrastructure
should be based on a beneficiary pays principle. This principle was supported by DSE in
their submission to the Inquiry.
The MAV recognises that a lot of work needs to occur as a result of this inquiry and the VFR.
We will ensure that councils are consulted throughout this process.
Response to Recommendations
This brief provides a summary of each chapter and the MAV response to recommendations
of relevance to councils.
Due to the length of chapter four and the number of recommendations relating to the
ownership and management of levees, we have summarised the recommendations. Please
refer to Attachment 1 for the full list of all recommendations.
Chapter 4 - Levees: Ownership, management and maintenance responsibilities
Chapter four contains the largest number of recommendations in the report. It addresses
item (b) from the terms of reference, ‘the management of levees across Victoria, including
ownership, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private land’.
2
The chapter covers the history of levees in Victoria and makes recommendations regarding
who should own and maintain various levee types. It determined three issues central to
resolving the question of ownership: land tenure, who benefits from the levee, and who
undertook the construction work. It recommends the beneficiary pays principle as the most
appropriate way to fund management and maintenance responsibilities.
The report appears to nominate the direct community as the beneficiaries, and recommends
that the beneficiary pays principle be implemented using council rates or a special charge
under the Water Act 1989. This point is further discussed in the MAV response section
beneath the list of findings.
The committee categorises levees into the following types, and recommends responsibility
accordingly:


urban levees (metropolitan and non‐metropolitan), subdivided into two classes levees which have been constructed since 1980 and those constructed prior to that
date, and
rural levees, again subdivided into two classes – levees developed with the
involvement of government and those developed without government involvement.
In some cases councils maintain newer urban levees but often do not see themselves as the
owners. Responsibilities for older urban levees, rural levees with prior government
involvement, and privately constructed levees on public land are frequently disputed.
Private levees that have been constructed on a single property and have no bearing on
other properties are also discussed.
The Committee determined that there is a clear need for a common statewide approach to
prioritising the state’s levees for the purpose of future investment and recommends a more
thorough audit and data management regime for levees..
In terms of future management responsibilities, the Committee recommends that CMAs
should be responsible for management and maintenance of rural levees, except those on
private land which remain the responsibility of the landholder.
The Committee also recommends that ownership, management and maintenance of all
urban levees be assigned to councils. It is acknowledged in the report that a number of
urban levees are in disrepair and are not considered to be of benefit to the community.
Recognising that decommissioning levees is expensive, the Committee recommends that
‘low priority levees’ be removed when funding from the Victorian Government becomes
available. It is also acknowledged that repair and reinstatement of higher priority urban
levees would be cost-prohibitive for councils and their communities if funded under a
beneficiary pays principle that only charges the landholders in the vicinity of the levee. It is
therefore recommended that the Government give consideration to wholly funding, or
contributing to, the initial upgrade of high priority levees to an agreed standard.
The Committee also recommends that before the construction of any new public levees,
DSE and the ‘public authority’ (council or the CMA) should undertake a cost‐benefit analysis,
which should be supported by a floodplain management study.
The Committee found that current permit processes for works on levees are complex, time
consuming, costly and contribute to a lack of maintenance of many levees by private
3
landowners and government agencies. It calls for a streamlined permitting system which
includes provision for exemptions.
Issues relating to access, emergency construction and incident management are also
discussed. The critical issue of liability is discussed separately, in chapter six.
MAV response:
A number of recommendations in this chapter directly affect councils. There are also issues
raised that the MAV wishes to further investigate with councils prior to participating in
forthcoming reviews, such as the review of the Victoria Flood Management Strategy and any
legislative review.
Response to Findings 4.1-4.3 and 4.7 and Recommendations 4.1-4.5 and 4.8 relating
to ownership, funding and basis of responsibility
The MAV supports the need for a revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy that clearly
articulates the principles, roles and responsibilities for the ownership, management and
ongoing maintenance of Victoria’s levees.
The MAV is concerned that the beneficiary pays principle may be applied in a manner that
imposes a significant and inequitable financial strain on councils and ratepayers. Narrowly
defining ‘beneficiaries’ as the immediate community does not recognise the broader benefits
of flood mitigation infrastructure including;
 adjacent communities that may avoid flooding or the need for further flood
management investment due to nearby infrastructure
 the broader public that benefits from no disruptions to business, transport and other
amenities, and
 the Victorian Government that can forego significant emergency response and
recovery expense. In response to the 2010-12 floods, the restoration of assets and
community recovery projects has been costly for the state and federal governments.
If these costs can be mitigated in the future there should be an ongoing funding
stream available for the assets.
Additionally an individual or community’s level of flood protection should not be determined
by their ability to pay. In most cases flood mitigation infrastructure can be defined as a public
good or service. This good is similar to other public goods provided by government such as
police and health services, a minimum level of which is provided regardless of ability to pay.
Moving to a beneficiary pays system constitutes a significant change in policy and an
increase in costs to many communities that must be recognised. The State Government
should consider adjustment assistance to communities that are unable to meet the
requirements of a new beneficiary pays policy.
The Committee does not specifically recommend a collection method for implementing the
beneficiary pays principle. Options discussed include a user pays system where only the
landholders who benefit from the levee are rated or a special charge under the Water Act
where beneficiaries pay an annual fee for maintenance costs – either via the water authority,
CMA or collected by the council. The MAV does not support councils being the collection
agent for CMAs or for water corporations.
Discussion within the report relating to drainage should not be separate from considerations
of other flood mitigation infrastructure. Just as flood mitigation infrastructure needs to be
considered against a range of flood management options on a whole-of-catchment basis,
4
consideration of specific flood mitigation infrastructure should consider all available options
and combinations including urban and rural drainage and coastal inundation.
In rural areas the CMA is the floodplain manager and therefore should be responsible for
decisions about the establishment and maintenance of all flood mitigation infrastructure, in
consultation with water corporations and councils.
Despite this, there are many examples of councils expressing willingness to manage and
maintain urban levees that are considered high priority if legal protection from liability is
provided.
We support the recommendation that rural levees on private land that do not affect floodplain
management or other properties remain owned, managed and funded by the landholder.
The MAV will work further with councils to understand the sector’s view on the:
 management of urban levees
 beneficiary pays principle, and
 willingness to assume accountability for urban levees if the State does not commit to
funding the initial upgrade.
Response to Finding 4.4 and Recommendations 4.6-4.7 regarding access, permits and
approvals
This section focuses on permission to construct, upgrade or undertake maintenance works,
and issues relating to access. The ability to enter private land to undertake works in an
emergency is discussed separately in recommendation 4.14.
Under s.133 of the Water Act, CMAs have a right to enter land to undertake works or
delegate this authority to another person or body. The Committee recommends a
streamlined process for access to conduct upgrades and maintenance – both for public land
managers conducting works on public and private land, and private landholders conducting
works on public land. The MAV sees potential risks associated with this recommendation
and does not support unimpeded private access on public land for flood protection purposes.
The floodplain manager should maintain control over works conducted on public land so that
they can balance land uses including public flood protection.
The Victorian planning system contains no clear trigger that would require the acquisition of
a planning permit before action to construct or maintain a levee on private land could
proceed. Permits are generally required for earthworks (levee construction) when the
earthworks change the rate of flow or the discharge point of water across a property
boundary, and may also relate to vegetation removal and cultural heritage, or be triggered by
other overlay controls.
If the objective of the recommendation is to make it easier to construct or modify levees,
then it would make sense to work through a range of suitable exemptions and conditions,
and apply them broadly across planning schemes of relevant zones. However, there are
associated risks with this approach. It would mean that no permit would be required in some
cases, which would rely on the CMA having a whole-of-catchment view about how works
affect anticipated flows. Certain types of maintenance, new works and scales of levees could
be exempted, but this may lead to a loss of native vegetation and damage to cultural
heritage. Applying these exemptions would make it difficult to keep track of any exempt new
levees or modifications.
5
The MAV strongly disagrees with Recommendation 4.7 that it would be councils’
responsibility to inspect new levees to ensure they do not adversely affect other landholders.
Councils are not the floodplain manager and do not have whole-of-catchment knowledge of
new or modified levees. Nor do they have the resources to undertake an ongoing
compliance monitoring regime.
A CMA is best placed to ‘certify’ that a proposal complies with the conditions for exemption
from permit requirements regarding impacts on anticipated flows. They can then record the
proposed works, and inspect post-construction. This advice can then be provided by the
applicant to a council who can confirm whether a permit is required or not, as often there are
multiple permit triggers. Without the CMA providing the first point of advice, a collective view
about the combined effect of levees in a catchment will be impossible to determine.
This would address the possible complication associated with the current revision of the
CMA and other referral roles. Where there is a clear impact on the floodplain, the floodplain
manager should be responsible for approvals.
Response to Findings 4.8-4.9 and Recommendations 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 on standards,
auditing and inspections
The MAV agrees with ENRC that more comprehensive information on levees needs to be
acquired so that the levee prioritisation process can be completed. This audit should
continue to be undertaken by DSE with the floodplain manager, and the MAV supports the
recommendation that the data be stored and kept up to date in the Victoria Flood Database.
The Committee recommends regular inspection and maintenance should be undertaken by
the relevant public authority, and the Victorian Government should be responsible for
auditing to ensure maintenance is undertaken. As stated earlier, the MAV believes the
inspection regime would be best undertaken by the floodplain manager.
The MAV supports a review of the current technical guidelines as proposed in
recommendation 4.11. However, compliance with the guidelines should be ensured by the
CMA, not the council, as is suggested in the second half of the recommendation.
Response to recommendation 4.12
Recommendation 4.12 relates to the Yarriambiack Creek levee. It is currently owned and
managed by Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water. It suggests that DSE review the ownership
with a view to transferring it to another public authority. This is a location-specific issue on
which the MAV has little knowledge.
Response to Finding 4.10 and Recommendation 4.13 and 4.14 relating to levee
construction and modification in an emergency
The MAV does not support recommendation 4.13 which states that councils should develop
flood response plans as sub-plans to the Municipal Emergency Management Plan (MEMP).
We believe VicSES, as the flood control agency, should lead the development of flood
response plans. VicSES is currently developing flood response plans in many municipalities.
Councils should be a supporting agency in this process. Floods are not limited to a single
council area.
This section also discusses whether levees constructed during an emergency should
remain. In its evidence to the inquiry, DSE stated that options exist for councils to investigate
whether these levees should remain. In relation to removal, DSE provided evidence that the
6
Victorian Government does not have powers to remove unauthorised works, but that
councils can use powers under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to remove works.
The recommendation that DSE should develop guidelines for the management of levees in
emergencies is only partly supported. The MAV does not think it should be a council
responsibility to remove illegal levees, and under the Planning and Environment Act seeking
compliance through VCAT may simply result in the illegal earthworks gaining planning
approval.
Response to Recommendation 4.15 relating to infrastructure, such as roads, which
act as levees
The MAV supports the principle that where flood and cost-benefit studies show that
infrastructure can be enhanced to act as a levee, these works should be considered if
budgets – including maintenance budgets - allow. While the floodplain manager, in
consultation with the road manager and the drainage authority, can provide advice on the
benefits, the ultimate decision should lie with the road manager, taking into account longterm maintenance costs.
Response to Finding 4.11 and Recommendation 4.16 regarding decommissioned
channels
The Inquiry heard concerns about the effects of decommissioned irrigation channels in
western Victoria which highlighted the linkages between flood and drainage management
and the challenges these linkages pose for council and other responsible authorities. The
MAV supports the recommendation that the State work with stakeholders to resolve
ownership of redundant channels.
Response to Finding 4.12 and Recommendation 4.17 relating to cross border issues
The height of levees on the New South Wales side of the Murray River is of concern to
Victorian residents and there is currently no interstate agreement to manage flooding and
flood mitigation infrastructure along the river. The MAV supports the need for the Victorian
Government to work with the NSW Government to develop a floodplain management
strategy for the Murray River.
Response to Finding 4.13 and Recommendation 4.18 relating to essential services
The MAV supports the recommendation that the State Government implement the
recommendation of the VFR to develop and implement appropriate flood mitigation and
protection measures for essential services, such as power stations.
Response to Recommendation 4.19 relating to temporary levees
The MAV does not view this as solely a council responsibility. We therefore only partially
support the recommendation that consideration should be given to the use of temporary
levees as an alternative or addition to permanent structures.
7
Chapter 5 - Waterways: ownership, management and maintenance approaches
Chapter five addresses terms of reference: (c) waterways management, including the nature
and extent of vegetation clearing activities within waterways and their general maintenance;
(d) identifying those entities and individuals having ownership of waterways and the
responsibility for their clearing and their maintenance; and (e) the extent to which, if any,
local knowledge of residents is employed in effecting waterways clearing and maintenance.
This chapter makes recommendations that seek to clarify roles and responsibilities for
waterway management, particularly for waterways in townships, which appear to cause the
most confusion. Most of Victoria’s waterways and associated riparian land is vested in the
Crown and its agencies. A fewer number are privately owned. CMAs are confirmed as the
responsible authority for the management and ongoing maintenance of rural waterways,
including vegetation management, for the purposes of flood mitigation and protection.
Clarification will be established in policy through the revision of the Victoria Flood
Management Strategy.
In addition, the Committee found a lack of clarity exists about who should pay for works on
waterways for flood mitigation purposes, and their ongoing maintenance, particularly in
urban areas. It recommends a revised funding model for undertaking works based primarily
on the beneficiary pays principle.
As floodplain managers under the Water Act, CMAs and Melbourne Water have enabling
powers, responsibilities and functions for the management of waterways, drainage and
floodplains. However, they are not obliged to carry out any function conferred by the Act (s.
124(5)). The Committee found that councils have responsibilities for floodplain management
planning under the Victoria Flood Management Strategy, but not under the Local
Government Act, which merely provides for powers in relation to drainage.
There are inconsistencies in key flood documentation in relation to clean-up responsibilities
following a flood event. The Committee found removal of vegetation and debris blockages
around critical public infrastructure to be a CMA responsibility, and called for this to be
reflected in state policy and statements of obligations, and subject to new guidelines.
Recommendations also include streamlining the permit system for works done to waterways
and the introduction of a new exemption for flood mitigation works.
Importantly for councils, this chapter also explores drainage management issues. In the last
section of the chapter, the role of drainage in flood mitigation is clearly outlined. Rural
drainage schemes were found to be beset by problems of inadequate funding, lack of or
difficulty in obtaining approvals for works, and lack of agency responsibility. However in the
Melbourne metropolitan area, the funding model and coordination between Melbourne Water
and councils was found to be much more effective.
Recommendation 5.1
A revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy should identify and assign roles and
responsibilities for the management and ongoing maintenance of Victoria’s waterways, for
the purposes of flood protection and flood mitigation:
 CMAs are confirmed as the responsible authority for the management and ongoing
maintenance of waterways, including vegetation management, for the purposes of
flood protection, and
8

CMAs will negotiate with landholders, councils and other authorities, and conduct
agreed flood mitigation works on the basis of beneficiary pays.
MAV response to 5.1: The MAV supports this recommendation, with the same reservations
about the beneficiary pays principle as stated in response to chapter 4. A community’s ability
to pay should not affect their level of flood protection. A better understanding of the proposed
collection model is required and councils need to be consulted as part of the process.
Recommendation 5.2
The role of flood risk management planning rests with CMAs and Melbourne Water (under
the Water Act, and is a shared responsibility with local government. Shared responsibilities
for flood risk management planning and implementation will be consistently reflected in
government policy.
MAV response to 5.2: The MAV supports integrated flood risk planning, however future
policy should make it clear that the floodplain manager takes the lead. Stakeholders such as
councils, DSE, water authorities and emergency services have a supporting role to play.
Recommendation 5.3
The revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy should clearly articulate the policy
guidelines for the management of vegetation and debris in Victorian waterways, for the
purposes of flood protection and mitigation, taking into account the localised potential
flooding effects of in‐stream vegetation in townships. To that end:
 the Victoria Flood Management Strategy will provide flood risk criteria for identifying
specific reaches of rivers and streams that require ongoing vegetation management
and maintenance, and to be subject to a revised permitting system
 in their Regional Flood Strategies, CMAs will identify specific reaches of rivers and
streams in their catchments, that require ongoing vegetation management and
maintenance, and to be subject to a revised permitting system
 each CMA will develop an In‐stream Management Policy to clarify responsibilities for
the management of all waterways, including vegetation management. This will clearly
articulate the circumstances under which the CMA will approve the removal of
vegetation. This policy to be reviewed every three years, and
 where appropriate CMAs will develop agreements with local regional councils.
MAV response to 5.3: The MAV supports this recommendation, particularly the risk
identification of specific reaches of rivers and streams that require ongoing vegetation
management. Like the VicRoads bushfire risk assessment guideline for roadsides, this
approach would improve consistency and provide a risk and science-based foundation for
community education about effective flood mitigation. Councils welcome greater role and
responsibility clarity and, as has been seen in Wangaratta and Bendigo, are willing to enter
into agreements for management of waterway vegetation.
Recommendation 5.4
The DSE should develop guidelines for streamlining the permitting system for works on
waterways for incorporation in the revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy. An
exemption process will be introduced, with particular application to identified reaches of
rivers and streams that require ongoing vegetation management and maintenance:
 that the Government will amend the Victorian Planning Provisions to create a new
exemption for native vegetation removal under clause 52.17, for the purpose of ‘flood
protection’, and
9

catchment management authorities will amend their respective ‘Works on
Waterways’ bylaws to reflect these changes.
MAV response to 5.4: The MAV welcomes the streamlining of permitting for works on
waterways. A new exemption under the Victoria Planning Provisions will need to be
underpinned by clear guidance as to when and what native vegetation removal is acceptable
and appropriate, which would be linked to CMA-specific In-stream Management Policies. As
commented on in relation to the proposed exemption for levee establishment and
modification, if something is exempt it would be almost impossible (and not councils’ role) to
monitor the works and assess their impact. This should be the role of the CMAs and
Melbourne Water, as floodplain managers, with the water authority in urban rural areas.
Recommendation 5.5
The DSE will develop a code of practice on the removal of vegetation around critical public
assets, in consultation with councils, CMAs and asset managers. Regional Flood Strategies
will support this code of practice as part of shared flood risk management planning.
MAV response to 5.5: The MAV supports this recommendation.
Recommendation 5.6
Significant modification of waterways in urban or rural areas will only be considered after the
completion of a flood risk management process, undertaken in consultation with members of
the community.
MAV response to 5.6: The MAV supports this recommendation, with the inclusion of
relevant stakeholders, such as local government.
Recommendation 5.7
The revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy should clearly identify authorities and
assign responsibilities for stream blockage and debris removal in waterways posing a high
risk to public infrastructure both during and after a flood:
 in the aftermath of a flood event, CMAs, in liaison with local councils, will manage
debris posing a high risk to public infrastructure
 the In‐stream Management Policy of CMAs will guide the post‐flood management of
debris affecting the assets of private owner beneficiaries
 DSE will review the woody debris removal practices of CMAs and develop new
management guidelines, and
 engagement with stakeholders, including councils and landholders will take place
prior to any large scale removal of woody weeds, such as willows, is undertaken by
CMAs.
MAV response to 5.7: The MAV supports this recommendation, however it is critical that
CMAs are appropriately funded to undertake this work. Funding should not merely rely on a
beneficiary pays model.
Recommendation 5.8
Local knowledge on the management and ongoing maintenance of waterways, including
vegetation clearing and debris removal, needs to be incorporated in the development of
regional flood mitigation strategies and local flood plans. Specifically:
10



the process of flood risk assessment must include community consultation, and these
views will inform development of both floodplain management studies, and floodplain
implementation plans
in the absence of a formal planning process, councils and authorities undertaking
significant ad hoc works on waterways for flood mitigation and protection must
involve the local community, and
the revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy and Victorian River Health Strategy
will clearly articulate this process.
MAV response to 5.8: The MAV supports this recommendation. Local knowledge is an
important part of the strategy development process that incorporates hydraulic modelling
and understanding the effectiveness of management approaches at different scales.
Education as part of the consultation process can help to mitigate the perception that parties
weren't ‘listened to’, where decisions are made using best available science.
Recommendation 5.9
The DSE will develop clear policy for the coordinated management of rural drainage,
clarifying the legal framework, and identifying authorities with responsibility for the
management and ongoing maintenance of formal schemes, and their development:


where appropriate, an expedited approvals process for works be applied in line with
recommendation 5.4, and
a central component of policy will be the principle of beneficiary pays.
MAV response to 5.9: The MAV supports this recommendation. Victoria needs a clear
policy for the coordinated management of rural drainage, led by DSE and CMAs with water
corporations and councils. The MAV understands rural drainage does not include drainage
systems in towns and regional cities, although they are part of the catchment and its flows,
and that this recommendation relates particularly to rural drainage schemes and works
resulting from previous schemes.
The policy must address and seek to resolve the challenges which are faced by floodplain
managers, drainage authorities and councils in the design, provision and maintenance of
drainage services, and their relationship to floodplain management. These include:


what is the best model for designating ownership and maintenance responsibilities
for rural drainage schemes? Councils do not have a statutory responsibility for such
schemes and should not be the default owner and maintainer, however under the
Local Government Act they can be the owner of last resort.
how should the maintenance of waterways be conducted when those waterways
have simultaneous biodiversity and drainage functions? These are not mutually
exclusive and a key role of the CMA is to balance the two objectives.
The policy must recognise the limited role of councils in rural drainage.
Recommendation 5.10
Within the jurisdiction of Melbourne Water, it shares with local councils the responsibility to
manage local drainage systems as outlined under the Water Act and the Local Government
Act respectively:
11


Melbourne Water, in conjunction with metropolitan councils, will undertake an audit of
drainage infrastructure to identify drains that are not currently managed by a public
authority, and
following this audit Melbourne Water will work with relevant councils to develop best
practice models for the management of the drainage asset.
MAV response to 5.10: The MAV supports this recommendation. For some of the 38
councils in the Melbourne Water drainage area (particularly growth area councils) there is a
gap between the council’s provision of local drainage infrastructure and the water authority’s
provision of major drainage infrastructure. The audit of drainage infrastructure should assist
in the management of these assets.
Matters raised by metropolitan councils such as Port Phillip and Melbourne included the
need for flood modelling to factor in storm frequency and intensity, and tidal/sea level rise in
a consistent way for statutory planning as well as strategic planning. Management of
drainage assets will become a greater challenge for councils and Melbourne Water as
climate change impacts and urbanisation increases, and greater guidance will be sought on
modelling and strategic asset management.
Chapter 6 - Legal issues
Chapter six primarily addresses the term of reference (b) the ‘management of levees across
Victoria, including ownership, responsibility and maintenance on both public and private
land’. Following chapter four which focused on the ownership, management and
maintenance responsibilities of levees, this chapter examines the critical issue of liability in
terms of levee performance and/or failure. It looks at the rights, obligations and liabilities
relating to water resources and management as they apply to private land owners or public
authorities (local councils or CMAs) and in relation to the Water Act and the Water Industry
Act 1994.
The first section examines liability for private levees under section 16 of the Water Act, which
can impose liabilities on any person including a council for causing or interfering with the
flow of water onto another person’s land. The Committee noted a number of requests for a
complaints process to be established, however determined it would arguably require a legal
process to resolve such complaints.
This chapter also examined liability of public authorities for urban or rural levees that were
constructed or maintained with government involvement, or those levees built wholly or
partly on public land. The Committee noted this as a concern for public authorities and
agreed it needs to be resolved to alleviate the issue for councils about whether they could be
held liable if a levee they have maintained is breached, which to date has had significant
implications for levee construction and maintenance.
The Committee reports that statutory protection from liability was supported by councils. The
Committee has examined a section of the Wrongs Act 1958 that determines whether a
public authority has breached a duty of care by addressing the principle that they are limited
by financial or other resources reasonably available to them.
The Committee heard evidence from DSE that policy options have not been developed for
resolving liability issues. However, the Department acknowledged that solutions would need
12
to be worked through and enshrined in legislation before public authorities are given
responsibilities for levee management.
The Committee agreed that liability issues for councils and CMAs need to be resolved, and
that councils should be protected for undertaking work on priority levees in good faith and
where they are acting to reasonably protect their community. Council submissions
suggested that there should be statutory protection from liability, and the Committee has
recommended that the Victorian Government consider enacting legislation to this effect.
Recommendation 6.1
The State Government give consideration to enacting legislation to provide protection from
legal liability for public authorities conducting works on priority levees in good faith, acting
reasonably and responsibly in the public interest, and in accordance with standards agreed
to under approved schemes. Public authorities should not be excluded from liability if they
have acted negligently.
MAV response to 6.1: The MAV strongly supports this recommendation. Liability has been
a long-standing issue and the MAV would welcome legal indemnity enshrined in legislation
when an authorised public authority is undertaking levee works in good faith.
Chapter 7 – Water Storages
This chapter addresses the term of reference (d) ‘identifying best practice and emerging
technology for flood mitigation and monitoring infrastructure including river gauges’.
During the Inquiry, the Committee received submissions from a range of stakeholders,
including councils, about water storages and the role they played in flood mitigation across
the state during the 2010 and 2011 floods. The Committee found that almost all water
storages performed without major incident and were operated in line with current
governance arrangements.
Although Victoria’s water storages were not designed for flood mitigation, the Committee
found that during flood events many of the state’s water storages do provide a level of flood
mitigation, which in some cases is highly important.
Victoria’s water storages are largely owned and operated by the 19 water corporations
across the state. The report acknowledges that councils own and operate a significant
number of dams across the state, however the majority of these dams are small and used
for recreational purposes. The 400 large dams that are owned and operated by water
corporations are the focus of this chapter.
MAV response to chapter 7
(Please see attachment 1 for a list of recommendations in chapter seven)
The MAV notes that the chapter seven recommendations are for the attention of water
corporations which operate major water storages, not councils.
The MAV supports efforts to increase public awareness of how water storages are operated
and the rules that govern those operations, whilst noting that a considerable amount of
information is already made publicly available.
13
Chapter 8 – Flood monitoring infrastructure
Chapter eight addresses term of reference (a) ‘identifying best practice and emerging
technology for flood mitigation and monitoring infrastructure including river gauges.’ The
chapter provides an overview of flood monitoring and prediction and outlines the six
components as: monitoring and prediction, interpretation, message construction,
communication, protective behaviour, and review.
Councils raised a number of issues around monitoring and prediction through their
submissions. Recent flood events highlighted deficiencies in the current prediction and
warning systems, exposed gaps in the radar across various areas across the state, and
numerous shortfalls in existing gauges.
The chapter specifically focuses on flood monitoring infrastructure that will help to enable
flood monitoring and prediction - specifically focusing on river and rain gauges; the
interpretation of data to predict the flow of water across the landscape; the local datum or
Australian Height Datum (AHD) as a measure for river heights; and the way messages are
communicated to the community during a flood event. Recommendations are made in
relation to flood gauges; developing a formalised system for utilising local knowledge in an
event; the funding approach for the operation; maintenance and upgrade of river gauges;
and how data is interpreted to describe river height. There is a high degree of crossover
between this chapter and the findings of the VFR.
The Inquiry found that councils are responsible for the ongoing maintenance of river gauges,
which the Committee reports cost around $20 000 per gauge per annum. The Committee is
concerned that these costs are limiting the number of gauges purchased and, as a
consequence, the effectiveness of the state’s flood warning system.
The report does not have a recommendation around ‘communicating messages’. However it
outlines that there is considerable evidence that communities are frustrated with the content
and timeliness of warning messages, and that opinions are varied as to what constitutes a
timely or accurate warning.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) has assured that they are making efforts to match timing
of warnings to desired expectations. A sub-committee of the Victoria Flood Warning
Consultative Committee (VFWCC) will be convened to address this issue. As a member of
the VFWCC, the MAV will sit on this committee and will ensure there is clarity about who is
responsible for issuing warnings and flood-related information to the public.
Recommendation 8.1
The State Government implement the Victorian Floods Review recommendation 8 - to
review the flood gauging network. As part of the review, consideration should also be given
to the use of portable telemetered river gauges, and to the replacement of manual gauges
with telemetered gauges over time and where appropriate.
MAV response to 8.1: The MAV supports this recommendation, particularly that portable
telemetered gauges are important to ensure readings can be done at any time and to ensure
reliability of data. The MAV will advocate that data can be made available to councils in a
timely manner in conjunction with being posted on the BoM website. The MAV will engage
with the State to determine ownership and monitoring arrangements for portable gauges.
14
The Inquiry reveals that the BoM only intends to replace or upgrade manually-read gauges
to ensure real time information is available to assist flood forecasting. Local government has
made it clear that there are gaps in the radar in areas including the Wimmera, North Central
region or South Gippsland.
The MAV will continue to advocate on councils’ behalf throughout the gauge network review.
Recommendation 8.2
The State Government establish a well-coordinated and formalised system for the reading of
river gauges by local people, including flood wardens. Furthermore, the knowledge of local
people in predicting flood heights and impacts should be considered by emergency
management agencies when predicting floods.
MAV response to 8.2: The MAV supports this recommendation. As outlined in our
submission, a best practice model for flood wardens should be developed, and councils
should be given the opportunity to identify flood wardens.
The MAV believes that the issue of expertise needs to be managed to avoid inappropriate
and wrong advice. As the control agency for flood, VicSES should manage the flood warden
system as part of its intelligence function.
Recommendation 8.3
The State Government review the current funding approach used for the operation,
maintenance and upgrade of river gauges, with a view to improving the river gauge network.
MAV response to 8.3: The MAV supports this recommendation in principle and
understands that the impost of ongoing maintenance costs may be difficult for some lowresourced councils.
The Inquiry states that currently local government is responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of river gauges, which cost between $15 000 and $20 000 per gauge per
annum. Advice from councils and DSE suggest this figure is significantly lower, with
maintenance costs being closer to an average of approximately $2000 per gauge per
annum. However the MAV recognises that the range of costs will be dependent on the
circumstances and the number of agencies who contribute to the partnership arrangement.
The MAV will advocate the implementation of appropriate funding mechanisms for shared
gauges through the review of the Victoria Flood Management Strategy which is due to
commence in early 2013.
Recommendation 8.4
The State Government implement the Victorian Floods Review recommendation 10 in
relation to the datum used to describe river and stream heights.
MAV response to 8.4: The MAV supports this recommendation and believes that
consistency is needed across the state and municipalities. The MAV also believes that the
Government should translate all historical data into both readings to allow municipalities to
utilise it for prediction and planning purposes.
The MAV is aware that councils think the 1 in 100 or 1 in 200 year terminology is out-dated
and not well understood as terminology for interpreting flood data. However, this terminology
is embedded in the Victoria Planning Provisions. The MAV will engage with the Victorian and
15
Federal Government to ensure that national standards are adopted that can help to achieve
clarity and consistency in how flood terminology is viewed.
Chapter 9 – Local knowledge, community engagement and education
This chapter addresses the term of reference (e) ‘the extent to which, if any, local knowledge
of residents is employed in effecting waterways clearing and maintenance.’
The chapter looks at local knowledge and how it has been used in flood mitigation. It
recognises that local knowledge and warden arrangements have not been used consistently
across the state and provides examples from councils about how local knowledge and local
flood wardens were not ‘listened to’ by agencies and State departments in recent events.
Additionally, it states that the number of wardens, duties and expectations vary between
locations and that there is a need for a more formalised structure.
The chapter examines community engagement and how it can lead to a decrease in the
amount of damage caused by a flood, relating particularly to the FloodSafe program. This
chapter concludes by looking at community resilience and the need to develop localised
township-based resilience plans and associated committees. The Committee suggest this
should be led by the Victoria Police and sit as a sub-plan to the Municipal Emergency
Management Plan (MEMP).
Recommendation 9.1
Public authorities such as councils and CMAs should continue to seek local knowledge in
relation to flood management issues. In particular, councils will collaborate with VicSES and
other key stakeholders in reviewing the system of flood wardens. Roles and responsibilities
of flood wardens, and the process for their recruitment, should be formalised and clearly
articulated in relevant flood management plans.
MAV response to 9.1: The MAV supports this recommendation and recognises that utilising
local knowledge can be very important before, during and after a flooding event. As outlined
in our submission, a best practice model for flood wardens should be developed.
The best practice model should take into account reporting and communication, roles,
responsibilities, accountabilities and expenses incurred carrying out these roles. Additionally,
selection and succession planning, and training for wardens should be formally mapped out
by the VicSES when developing local and regional flood response plans.
Recommendation 9.2
The State Government should provide core, ongoing funding to the responsible authority for
the FloodSafe community education program. Funding should be provided for education
about prevention, response and recovery phases and include information on rates notices
about the height of particular floods.
MAV response 9.2: In many places, councils have worked closely with VicSES to deliver
FloodSafe Programs. This recommendation will not have a major impact on councils, except
that they may be called upon to provide community information or help identify community
leaders to help shape the program. The MAV supports this recommendation in principle but
argues that councils have a right to determine the information distributed on rates notices.
Recommendation 9.3
The State Government should implement the recommendations of the Victorian Floods
16
Review in relation to the creation of resilience committees and resilience plans, with
responsible authorities. (Recommendation 93 of the VFR includes the state pursuing priority
outcomes of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience)
MAV response 9.3: Councils will need to be involved in the development of resilience plans;
however facilitation will be resource-intensive and will need to be funded over a long period.
The MAV expects this VFR recommendation will be dealt with in the Victorian Government’s
white paper on emergency management, due out by the end of the year.
The MAV will advocate that the State allocate funding towards building community resilience
to organisations allocated responsibilities under the plans. If a community resilience plan is a
sub-plan of the MEMP, the council should not be the only agency to sign off on the plan; it
should be community-driven in partnership with councils and other agencies and community
groups.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Website link: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/article/1425
MAV contact person: Russell Rees
Phone Number: (03) 9667 5523
Email: rrees@mav.asn.au
October 2012
17