11 July 2015
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) Review
Water and Catchments
Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning
8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne, VICTORIA 3002
Dear Sir/Madam
RE:
Environmental Health Professionals Australia (EHPA) submission to the State
Environment Protection Policy Waters Review (the Policy)
INTRODUCTION
Environmental Health Professionals Australia (EHPA) is the national professional
organisation representing the interests of Environmental Health Practitioners (EHO’s) in
Victoria. They predominantly practice within a local government setting.
The organisation has a vested interest in advocating for the protection of public and
environmental health on behalf of its members and in turn the Victorian community.
It does this using organisational policy and applying the legislative tools made available to it
by both federal and state governments. In the case of the review of the Policy EHPA
response will raise deficiencies in the management of water that impacts on Victoria’s ability
to sustainably manage this precious resource.
To that end EHPA believes the Policy, and those agencies that play a part in its
implementation, adopt flexible engagement strategies that enable stakeholders to work in
an informed way to effectively and efficiently protect beneficial uses and environmental
values. This will involve a range of activities and programs that come together to achieve
both the principle and intent of the Policy.
Please find the following response and specific matters concerning the Policy review for your
serious consideration.
DISCUSSION
The Policy intent is to provide the framework, be priority driven and be primarily
implemented through Government approved regional catchment strategies (RCS) and plans.
It is intended the Policy will clarify responsibilities and provide an agreed structure.
EHPA agrees that regional catchment strategies provide the ideal vehicle to coordinate the
protection of Victorian water resources. Some RCS’s have acknowledged in their documents
that relationships are important and have consulted widely with local government. That
consultation more generally involved councillors or elected members who may or may not
be conscious of the involvement of council officers. It is council officers that are
predominantly tasked with implementing plans and more specifically plans that manage a
water resource such as storm or domestic wastewater.
This point brings into question the overall framework for the Policy. As much as it
encourages statutory and strategic planning, and working with one another to address and
monitor the impacts on surface and ground water, there are inconsistencies in information
made available to the agencies that assist in measuring those impacts. In the case of flood
mapping studies and groundwater impacts there is either conflicting information or none at
all that can inform decision making.
It is EHPA’s belief that a mutual responsibility should be placed on the agencies to do specific
tasks that inform each agency as to the success or otherwise of the plans and strategies that
from time to time need review and modification. There is a lack of structure in place to
inform stakeholders both internal and external to each agency. Something more than an
array of committees, plans and/or strategies should communicate the successes and failures
so that learnings are shared. EHPA suggests annual water reports be produced by each
agency that may attempt to fill that void and that it could detail what risk priorities were
identified, how that risk was addressed and who will be responsible for managing that risk
into the future. The priority setting may be at a local, regional or State level.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has many responsibilities one of those being to
provide support to protection agencies such as local government. Clause 14(7) of the Policy
states the EPA, during the lifetime of the Policy, will work with agencies to “focus on
providing guidance, and use partnership, audit, regulatory and enforcement tools to
minimise the impact of (a) wastewater discharges;”
EHPA has consistently advocated to the EPA for appropriate regulatory and enforcement
tools to enable the effective management of onsite domestic wastewater discharges. There
remains historic permitting issues concerning discharges to the environment that continue
due to approvals that were at the time seen be adequate, or, were in law not addressed
when legislative control passed from the Health Septic Tank Regulations 1977 to Part IXB of
the Environment Protection Act.
As with other licensing arrangements onsite wastewater permits are effectively a license to
pollute. These licences often provided little in the way of managing or controlling
wastewater pollution and to this day there is no provision to revoke, vary or amend the
permit/license. Similarly the legislation makes no provision for local government to recover
the costs of managing the permits issued for individual onsite domestic wastewater
discharges.
In June 2006 the Auditor General of Victoria released a report titled “Protecting our
environment and community from failing septic tanks”. The report made numerous
recommendations and stated unequivocally in its executive summary, “The audit identified a
clear need to improve backlog planning and prioritisation processes, the legislation
regulating septic tank management, and reporting and accountability mechanisms.”
With regard to backlog planning and prioritisation it was recommended the then
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) in conjunction with relevant
stakeholders:
• develop and implement a backlog plan;
• in consultation review the current septic tank regulatory framework; and,
• that local government (in accordance with SEPP) with others, undertake a
comprehensive review of backlog across the State to enable DSE to accurately
quantify backlog property numbers.
EHPA is concerned that the Auditor General report was largely ignored and that outstanding
recommendations remain unactioned. Stakeholders with responsibilities in this area are in
effect ignoring the Auditor General report, and in turn the Policy. EHPA would strongly
recommend this current review of the Policy address these outstanding issues.
In Victoria the estimated number of septic tank systems is 250 000. With this number of
systems each generating upward of 900L /day of wastewater there is a potential risk to, and
impact on, the environment that EHPA seriously believes is worth managing. The former DSE
or now Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has a stated
responsibility in the Policy to provide the legislative means to manage the risks to the water
environment from septic tank systems. The EPA has recently disbanded its wastewater unit
and the EHPA is concerned that implementing the current or any future policy will be a
difficult and potentially unsupported exercise. The knowledge and experience needed to
manage onsite wastewater discharges needs to be recognised at a state level and resources
provided. Without this support and prioritisation the management of onsite wastewater will
pose an increasing risk to the environment and public health.
What is also a concern to EHPA is the Policy may be used to direct agencies towards the
development of Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIP). This is difficult to reconcile given
DELWP have made no commitment regarding additional resources being provided to assist
local government in achieving this goal.
This brings EHPA to the issue of water corporations. But for a few small town sewer schemes
there has been a piecemeal, funding driven, approach to backlog sewer planning. New
sewered developments are occurring immediately adjacent to unsewered properties with no
consideration for planning for their backlog connection. This lack of foresight is challenging
given the previous work undertaken to comply with clause 32 of the Policy and the extensive
recommendations made by the Auditor General to all the agencies back in 2006. Planning
for sewer must mean more than upgrading existing infrastructure and local government
awaits the opportunity to be engaged in this process as was recommended.
Clause 32 of the Policy expressly requires local government to develop DWMP’s. The
deficiencies and resourcing issues previously expressed affect their implementation
particularly relating to compliance programs. The Policy and the Water Act clearly provides
water authorities with better powers than local government to manage onsite domestic
wastewater discharges. To enhance their responsibilities with regard to the protection of
Special Water Supply Catchments EHPA believes it is essential the Policy stipulates a
requirement for specific policy on the protection of such catchments so that it guides what
development can occur in these areas. This can then be used by local government in their
planning and decision making.
With WQIP it is hoped water quality monitoring for a wider range of pollutants than those
already prescribed is considered. For over a decade researchers have been identifying
markers for domestic wastewater and pharmaceuticals. EHPA believes that these markers
should be tested for on a periodic basis to assist in identifying sources of pollution. They too
will assist in gauging the success or otherwise of DWMP’s, SWMP’s and WQIP’s. It will also
be consistent with the Policy principles.
An essential prerequisite to implementation of any plan or policy is the adequacy of
resources. EHPA recognises that agencies are operating in a resource vacuum where
governments and as a consequence agencies, are consistently failing to adequately invest in
the future. There appears to be a focus purely on the economic and financial benefits rather
than making what appears to be the less than obvious link that economics has with the
environment or social impacts. The Policy must be cognisant of this when setting priorities
and become much better at communicating with stakeholders in a meaningful and
collaborative way.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Policy has some unrealistic expectations of agencies and it is a concern to the EHPA that
this will continue. If the intent of the Policy is to be achieved there needs to be some
significant changes to its content if agencies are to recognise their roles and responsibilities.
To this end EHPA makes the following recommendations:
1. Commit to the development of a communication plan that links the community,
agencies and information in the protection of water resources;
2. Specify the framework necessary for the development and implementation of
priorities and strategies that impact on the management of water resources;
3. Review the regulatory framework for the management of septic tanks to include
cost recovery s and the ability to enforce upgrades to old failing systems with no
permit;
4. Clarify the roles, responsibilities and powers of agencies involved in the
management of water and waste water resources;
5. Review the monitoring and reporting requirements for agencies so that agencies can
plan and prioritise in an informed way;
6. Specify the need for water authorities to develop Special Water Supply Catchment
policy for all designated areas under their control; and,
7. Ensure agencies conduct resource impact assessments as part of their operational
and/or strategic planning.
EHPA hopes that the review team will further consider the Victorian Auditor General report
cited as part of the SEPP water review and will favourably consider the recommendations
made within this submission. http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/2006/20060615Protecting-Our-Environment-and-Community-from-Failing-Septic-Tanks.pdf
Yours sincerely,
Louis Papageorgiou
President
Environmental Health Professionals Australia
Cc Victorian Auditor General