Towards a New Victorian Flood Management Strategy
Nick Ronan
Department of Sustainability and Environment
8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, Vic 3002
AUSTRALIA
E-mail: nick.ronan@dse.vic.gov.au
Abstract
This is an exploratory issues paper, produced to stimulate thinking and discussion about future
directions in managing runoff – with a focus on flooding – in the context of current and emerging
issues. The previous Victorian Flood Management Strategy was produced in 1998. Much has
changed since then. The Department of Sustainability and Environment has recently approved
preparation of an Urban Drainage Strategy for Victoria. These two arenas will be addressed in the
one, integrated process, with the objective of producing a new, overall strategy in 2008. This paper
discusses key new issues, challenges and opportunities that have arisen since 1998, and discusses
the scope and context of the review from a number of perspectives. The effects of climate change on
flooding will be a prominent issue, and the paper calls for a more integrated approach to managing
flooding as part of the continuous runoff spectrum. The paper raises a lot of issues that merit
consideration in the course of preparing the strategy, with a particular focus on those that are part of
the water cycle.
1. INTRODUCTION
The current Victoria Flood Management Strategy was published in 1998 with the primary objective of
paving the way for the allocation of floodplain management responsibilities to catchment management
authorities. Overall, implementation of the strategy has gone well, with the establishment of floodplain
management staff in all the non-metropolitan catchment management authorities and transfer of flood
data to those organizations. However, as with most long term strategies, some of the assumptions
underpinning the intent of the current strategy have not materialized, and several unexpected
developments have occurred.
This paper discusses the current outlook for flood management in Victoria in the broad context of
progress to date, along with new and emerging issues and opportunities. Specifically, it focuses on
the hydrological aspects of flooding, rather than the emergency management arrangements and other
related issues. This is because the emergency management arenas have undergone considerable
systematic review and renewal in recent times at both a state and national level, and will be well
addressed by other papers at this conference.
The paper explores some of the key questions that need answering in order to inform a new strategy.
To get the ball rolling, it is useful to consider some of the expectations that have changed since the
last strategy was produced, as well as some of the unexpected changes that have eventuated.
1.1 Changed Expectations
The most significant change to expectations since 1998 has been financial. In line with its campaign
commitments for the state election in September 1999, the newly elected Bracks Government
removed the general property rating powers of catchment management authorities soon after it took
office. Subsequently, these authorities have received base-level funding through the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, approximately in accordance with the revenue they expected to raise
from property rates. Other state funds have been made available on a merit basis, supported by
Commonwealth grants programs, and in recent times, through the environmental contributions
provided to government by Victorian water authorities.
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
Another significant change was the impact of the 1997 Victoria Planning Provisions on land use
planning and subdivision from a flood risk management point of view. While the establishment of the
Victoria Planning Provisions was noted in the 1998 flood strategy, the amount of activity and some of
the considerable challenges that eventuated were not anticipated. The new provisions enabled
authorities to depict land as subject to flooding far more directly and easily than had been possible
under the Water Act, 1989. Five key challenges arose.
a. Authorities needed to allay property owner fears that making flood risk information public via
planning schemes might compromise property value in the market.
b. Budget priorities had to change to free-up funds for the detailed floodplain analyses needed in
areas that had not been mapped in the past. Further, agencies such as Melbourne Water had
to manage a suite of large and complex contracts to meet the needs in a timely fashion.
c. Many municipalities remained sceptical that the information was of sufficient public interest to
necessitate amending their planning schemes as a matter of priority once it was available.
d. Municipal planning staff and property owners and developers needed guidelines and practice
notes to enable efficient and well-informed decision making.
A third significant unexpected event was the extent and severity of the ensuing drought, and the
associated diversion of public interest and concern away from flooding to factors like extensive water
shortages and devastating bushfires. While this may be perceived as having taken some of the
pressure off flooding at a time of substantial system change, it can also be perceived as having
resulted in under-funding and a lack of progress in important areas.
1.2 Unexpected Changes
A well-worn adage advises that the only certainty in life is that things will change. Looking back over
the last ten years, a number of important factors have indeed changed or developed in unexpected
ways. These provide a new context in which to review progress and set new directions.
Global warming, climate change, climate variability and sea level rise are widely acknowledged as
issues of significant human concern that are likely to have enormous consequences on domestic and
international politics and policies.
Global shortages of food and potable water remain major challenges for those committed to achieving
the Millennium Development Goals. In particular, concerns about fresh water are now greater than
they were in 2000, exacerbated by continuing world population growth and rising standards of living in
the developing world.
The use of fossil fuels has been identified as the most virulent aspect of human influence on global
temperature and climate change, with energy management now heading the list of priorities for new
ways of managing just about everything we do.
Collectively, the above factors have led to new ways of looking at water. Flood waters have been
frequently referred to as “wasted” resources. Domestic waste water is widely seen as having value for
garden watering and other secondary uses. The potential for domestic re-use of high-grade treated
effluent is being seriously debated in parts of Australia. People are installing rainwater tanks and
carting water around their homes in buckets to minimize waste. In Melbourne, the daily average water
use in 2006/07 was down to 303 litres per person per day, a level which has reportedly not been seen
for over 60 years – 300 litres in 1945/46. Social attitudes are very different to ten years ago.
1.3 A New Century – a New Outlook
This new set of circumstances begs for a new direction. The challenge is to ensure that any realignment is productive in terms of the benefits that are likely to be delivered.
This conference is proceeding when revision of the strategy is still very much a work in progress. The
future directions and priorities are yet to be agreed. Views from stakeholders and experts are still
being sought. Potential integration with other aspects of the water cycle is still being evaluated.
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
2 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
It is clear that significant and seminal changes have occurred in the socio-political environment, along
with a shift in fundamental social attitudes to natural resources. But there is also a sense of timing
about this revision. It is now the first decade of both a new century and a new millennium. The
challenge is ripe – to take the best of our science and experience from the past and apply it to a
rapidly changing future in ways that provide us with the greatest resilience to future disturbances.
2. THE RUNOFF SPECTRUM
This paper uses the word “runoff” in the sense of surface flows, as distinct from overall catchment
“yield” which is conventionally used to include both surface and subsurface contributions. The fact
that there are significant interactions between surface and subsurface hydrology is noted, but is not
necessary to explore in the current context.
Runoff occurs when the rate of precipitation exceeds the infiltration / absorption capacity of the
receiving surface and the build-up of surface moisture begins to flow along gravitational gradients.
Flooding occurs when the quantity of runoff exceeds the combined capacity of depressions, gutters,
pipes, channels, creek beds and other “designated” conveyance or storage systems. Use of the term
flooding is strongly associated with events of unusual or exceptional magnitude.
There is a wide spectrum between not enough and too much rainfall, and in turn, between not enough
and too much runoff. Flooding clearly occurs down at the “too much” end. Further, flooding is
regarded as “too much” in terms of quite anthropocentric or human perspectives – especially related to
protecting human life, property and other interests. Floodplains and wetlands that require inundation
for their effective functioning have only recently been recognised in water allocation policies.
A core issue is whether we treat “flooding” as a separate issue in the water cycle or as part of the
much wider, variously integrated runoff spectrum. The answer has implications for many technical
issues, including data collection, research, innovation, new technology, policies, regulations and –
especially – for institutional arrangements and how effectively they work. Further, and even more
importantly, the answer has potentially far-reaching implications for social attitudes to water and
awareness of how individuals are inter-connected to some of the outcomes.
Human beings shelter from rainfall and “manage” runoff in various ways throughout their lives. In
historical terms, the rainwater tank is a resonant symbol of colonising Australia – as reflected in the
water-tank rolling scenes in the closing ceremony of the Sydney Olympic Games in 2004. However,
the development of reticulated water supply and sewerage systems gradually removed the need for
domestic self-sufficiency in many areas.
Centralised service provision became the urban norm, along with roadside drainage and, eventually,
obligatory connection of roof runoff to urban stormwater drains for new buildings and significant
building extensions.
Developments in urban water management thus progressed to a point where water became a switchon, switch-off convenience – largely out of sight and out of mind. It gushed forth when you turned on
the tap and disappeared when you pulled the plug. It carried away our wastes, watered our gardens,
entertained our children and cleaned our driveways and cars. It worked for us in a very efficient and
utilitarian manner. Except for flooding, which has continued to plague various low lying areas at
various times, occasionally to a notorious extent. And, at a micro-scale, cleaning roof gutters in
advance of heavy rain is still as a necessary, albeit inconvenient, duty to avoid damage to buildings.
2.1 The Add-On Bits
Having established centralized system approaches for water supply, sewerage and, to various
extents, drainage, we were left with two renegade problems – pollution and flooding – both associated
with runoff. These have translated into largely separate systems of analysis, research, development
and action, more or less bolted-on beside the centralised functions of water supply, sewerage and
drainage. The corresponding issues relating to septic tanks and treatment plant discharges are also
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
3 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
ongoing issues, but cannot be discussed further in this paper.
On the pollution front, trade waste licensing greatly reduced the export of toxic pollutants to waterways
– albeit with the result that sewage is now more costly to treat because of its toxic constituents. This
was followed with a whole raft of measures intended to counteract pollution from non-point sources.
Litter laws and gross pollutant traps, along with more sophisticated systems such as wetlands
gradually achieved formal acceptance and became integrated into planning for new stormwater
systems. Water Sensitive Urban Design emerged as a new discipline, and best practice application of
the principles became a pre-requisite for many development approval processes.
Flood management was also evolving, along with greatly improved knowledge about energy dynamics
in river systems, and the futility of concrete channels from an environmental and aesthetic perspective.
Retarding basins and energy dissipation structures, along with levee banks and retaining walls were
key structural measures employed. On the non-structural front, the realisation that prevention was far
cheaper than cure eventually made it compulsory – or highly desirable – to plan for flood flows in
addition to street drainage in all new development areas.
However, the key accountabilities for stormwater runoff are still significantly disaggregated:
 The Environment Protection Authority is accountable for the pollution issues associated with
stormwater under the Environmental Protection Act, 1970.
 Floodplain Management Authorities (including Melbourne Water) and the Department of
Sustainability and Environment are accountable for floodplain management under the Water
Act, 1989.
 Municipalities are accountable for street and property drainage issues under the Local
Government Act, 1989. and for regulating the development of land under the Planning and
Environment Act, 1987.
 Property owners are responsible for preventing stormwater from entering the sewerage
network – where one exists – and for preventing pollution. However, they are also free to
harvest, store and use rainwater in everything from small dams to large and small tanks.
 Water Agencies are responsible for reticulated water supply and sewerage systems and, to
various extents, for regional drainage systems – most notably in the case of Melbourne Water.
The above responsibilities all relate to hydrologic / hydraulic issues. And notably, the functional
separation described is a long-recognised challenge. Integrated approaches have been trialled in a
great many projects and programs and have been the subject of many dissertations. Integrated water
cycle management and integrated catchment management have evolved as quasi disciplines that
focus on collaborative decision-making as a means of achieving better outcomes.
Where does this lead us? What are the implications for how we manage excess runoff and its issues
in the future? What has changed, if anything, to suggest we can do things differently? The next
section explores these issues.
2.2 Water-proof Glue?
Integrated water cycle management could be called “boffin talk” for good teamwork round the tap.
Good teamwork requires some sort of cohesive force to bind players together. Without this binding
agent, team work becomes hard work, can slow things down, and may not yield the expected benefits.
In teamwork, nearly all the important issues are people ones. Policies, laws, systems, technologies
and economics are not the core – they are the tools or artefacts. In order to assess the extent to
which, for example, integrated water cycle management will work, we have to consider all the people
involved or implicated, along with their friends and families. It will only work if there is some tangible
benefit for the majority of individuals in the community involved.
Recent, tangible experience of severe drought and water shortages right across the country have
created a common concern in the community. For the first time in many decades, major urban
populations have been subjected to severe water restrictions. People have been installing rainwater
tanks, diverting grey water to garden uses, and carting buckets of water to sustain valued plants and
garden beds. City folk have been getting their hands “wet” dealing with water issues they previously
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
4 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
thought very little about. Country folk have been battling harder – in some cases against
insurmountable odds – to stretch their ingenuity and meagre resources to survive despite the
pervasive drought.
Realistically, though, water shortages alone do not bind us together in a newly energized commitment
to integrated water cycle management. The metaphorical glue is still water-soluble. A couple of very
wet years could easily move the focus on to other issues. Aussies are accustomed to vigorously
battling through the hard times, with cheerful confidence that things will eventually improve.
However, deeper concerns about climate change and the multitude of consequences for life on the
planet may well provide a more enduring glue. The effects and side-effects are predicted to be longlasting, and very slow to respond to changes in human activity. The global warming phenomenon has
weakened universal confidence that traditional economic development is the answer to human
problems. The issue is prominent at the highest levels of international politics, albeit not prominent
enough for some. Debates about under-reacting versus over-reacting rage vigorously in many
political, scientific and economic arenas.
In a nutshell, current predictions suggest that Victoria will experience an overall reduction in average
annual rainfall, accompanied by an increase in the potential for more intense events. Local
downpours with associated stormwater flooding are forecast to increase in frequency. This
presumably means that periods of prolonged light drizzle and steady showers will significantly
decrease in frequency. Intuitively, this seems reasonable if we have a warmer and hence more
turbulent atmosphere. But it does not bode well for those interested in runoff management – at all
scales from the water supply catchment down to the “rainwater tank behind the chook shed”.
The outlook at the time of writing this paper is that climate change is becoming more certain and less
likely to be reversible within future decades. In natural resource terms, the implications for water
resources, biodiversity, food production and so forth could be catastrophic – some predict they will be.
Recent indications are that global warming, melting ice and sea level rise are potentially far more
serious than concluded in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Total inundation of large areas of the earth’s land surface is a frightening prospect.
The above arguments suggest that we should not dismiss old attempts at integrated management
when we are considering the current future. Climate change is very likely to provide the “water-proof
glue” required to engage communities in a common purpose in ways most of us have not experienced
in our life-times. How this will play out is uncertain – and speculation is better left in the hands of the
futurists and social scientists. This paper merely contends that the future is likely to be different from
the past in fundamental ways that will meaningfully improve the practicality of integrated management.
In the “flood strategy” context, we are faced with growing climate change concerns, and potential
exacerbation of both water shortages and storm / flood damage risks. Double exposure? Soaring
energy costs and sea level rise? Quadruple exposure? These are central themes around which we
need to construct the future strategy – not side issues which can be left for the future.
On this basis, it is contended that we need to thoroughly re-assess the existing knowledge in the light
of new scenarios and develop approaches that will serve future generations as well as we can
possibly devise. In doing so, our historical reliance on traditional institutional arrangements and
centralized systems as a means of delivering water services should be open to re-evaluation. The
current outlook clearly holds a greatly enhanced potential for engaging whole communities in
integrated solutions. This outlook is founded on the rapidly growing “climate change” imperative to
take prudent action and address “new millennium” issues with new millennium approaches.
Returning to the “team” analogy, the ball, the rules and the playing field have all changed quite
significantly. It seems unlikely that we can change them back. The obvious conclusion is that we
need to change the game plan. The principal challenge is to identify the right changes – especially
given the fact that none of us knows anyone who has actually played this new game before.
3. THE RUNOFF BALANCE
What’s in the balance and what’s at stake here? Views differ according to past experience, technical
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
5 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
awareness and jurisdictional circumstances. Figure 1 illustrates one way of looking at the balance
between predominantly traditional ways of managing excess runoff and potentially newer, more
sustainable approaches. The “More Traditional” side of the balance depicts some of the results that
occur as a consequence of managing the symptoms (too much runoff) at the end-of-pipe, or
downstream scale. The “More Sustainable” side depicts some of the opportunities that could be
achieved by better management of runoff at the source, in terms of retention, infiltration and re-use.
2
1
0
1
2
More
Sustainable
More
Traditional
Treat the Cause
Treat the Symptoms
Smaller drains
Less Flooding
More Water Security
Cooler Streets
Healthier Rivers
Wetter Soils
More Drought Resilience
More Climate Resilience
Greater Social Equity
Lower Energy Use
More economic synergy
Bigger Drains
More Flooding
Less Water Security
Hotter Streets
Sicker Rivers
Drier Soils
More Drought Vulnerability
More Climate Vulnerability
Low Social Equity
Higher Energy Use
More economic discord
Figure 1: The balance between more traditional and more sustainable runoff management
We know that traditional methods (focussed on efficient disposal and diversion) have magnified some
of the problems, as illustrated by the following:
 More efficient surface drainage means less infiltration, larger runoff volumes and exacerbated
problems downstream;
 More efficient drainage also means higher flow velocities, which increase particulate transport
capacity, exacerbating the movement of pollutants;
 Detention of flood flows for later slow release is known to adversely affect downstream
waterway stability and biological health, as well as downstream flooding in some situations;
 Draining low-lying pastures to make them more productive during wet years has made them
less productive during times of drought, as well as exacerbating flooding further downstream;
 Re-zoning and development of flood-prone land has yielded profits to the vendor and passed
the risk on to purchasers for no material consideration – ultimately producing demands for
public funding to abate the accumulating private risks.
We also know that some of the more sustainable approaches have achieved or been shown to have
the potential to achieve better outcomes. The following examples illustrate the point:
 Water Sensitive Urban Design at both streetscape and allotment scale have been shown to
reduce the export of pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorous and suspended solids;
 The same measures have also been shown mitigate the effects of re-development on flood
hydrographs;
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
6 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy



Ronan
Rainwater harvesting and re-use has a double advantage of reducing demands on mains
supply, and reducing runoff volumes and associated pollution loads;
Infiltration and aquifer re-charge are both an opportunity and a threat on the pollution
spectrum, but certainly can assist in managing surface runoff volumes;
Using rainwater to improve soil moisture to support vigorous tree growth in urban areas is
promoted as a counter-measure for the “heat island” effect that is resulting in increased
energy consumption for air conditioning.
So where does the balance lie? Is there a robust opportunity to manage runoff better at the source
and thereby reduce other costs at the downstream end? What would be required? What has stopped
us in the past? Figure 2 illustrates the fulcrum issue.
A
Retention and reuse of rainwater
across the
catchment
(WSUD +++)



B
How much of A is
required to achieve
how much of B ?
Cost of implementation
% coverage achievable
Permanency of benefits
Efficiency?
Reduced
requirement for
pollution / flood
mitigation works
in the valley



Reduction in risk
Community acceptance
Savings on mitigation
works
Effectiveness?
Figure 2: The question of effectiveness between source management and “end of pipe”
solutions.
If we did everything possible at the source end, across buildings, allotments and streetscapes, would
the individual changes accumulate to a tangible reduction in the needs for flood mitigation works and
other pollution abatement measures further down the system? And, if so, by how much? Enough to
buffer the effects of urban consolidation? Enough to buffer some of the effects of climate change?
These questions will have to be addressed in the course of informing the new strategy. Many of the
issues have been looked at to various extents in the past, but from different perspectives. For
example, rainwater tanks have been analysed thoroughly for their potential to reduce water demand,
and even to reduce the export of nutrients in runoff. WSUD technologies have been analysed
thoroughly for their potential to reduce pollution loads entering receiving waters such as Port Phillip
Bay.
However, most of the individual opportunities have been marginal in terms of cost-benefit or
practicality when considered on their own in pursuit of a specific objective. The aggregate
assessment of multiple synergistic actions to achieve a spectrum of related objectives is more
daunting, and deserves further analysis.
Where does the balance actually lie between the source management spectrum and end-of-pipe
mitigation spectrum? How does this play out from an economic perspective? How does it play out
from an individual property owner / occupier perspective? How does it play out from an institutional
perspective? How does it interact with other factors in the water cycle such as sewage overflows and
septic systems or re-use / third pipe proposals and supply augmentations? And, further, how does the
answer integrate with energy considerations, higher temperatures and increased evapotranspiration?
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
7 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
The above discussion of potential trade-offs has focussed on urban runoff and stormwater flooding,
mostly because of the greater density of impervious surfaces, risk exposure, building activity and other
factors associated with urban areas. This does not mean that riverine flooding is any less of an issue,
and the strategy will specifically address riverine flooding – of both urban and rural areas – in the
context of future directions and priorities.
4. A JIGSAW PUZZLE
This section discusses some of the wider contextual issues that also require analysis and digestion in
order to inform future thinking on management of runoff and flooding.
It is an understatement to say that water is a complicated subject. Conversely, it is an overstatement
to say that the water cycle (sea → atmosphere → land → sea) is a simple concept. We can make it
look simple on a piece of paper or a presentation slide, but that doesn’t reflect how it actually works in
the vast array of particular circumstances that are known to exist at the mechanism and pathway level.
The jigsaw puzzle metaphor is also an over-simplification. A better analogy may be a multi-layered
puzzle, with no picture on the box to indicate what the finished product should look like, and a lot of
pieces that definitely do not seem to fit together at all. Further, there are a lot of seemingly amorphous
and transparent pieces that could go anywhere.
Via informal interviews and discussions arranged during the first phase of the flood strategy revision,
many people have provided individual views on a wide range of subjects from a stimulating range of
perspectives. And, in line with the puzzle metaphor, a lot of the pieces collected in this process
definitely did not seem to fit together – providing a valuable stimulus for further thinking, analysis and
discussion.
4.1 Accountabilities or Scrambled Eggs
As noted earlier in Section 2.1, for historical reasons, formal accountabilities for provision of services
related to the management of runoff and mitigation of flooding are both complicated and variable – a
bit “scrambled”, one could say. To better illustrate this, a few terms need defining.
“Drainage” will refer to the provision of systems, urban or rural, formal or informal, for management of
small to moderate quantities of excess surface water, irrespective of its origin – in all situations that
are regarded as “normal” – say, up to the magnitude of a one in five year average recurrence interval
event. Irrigation drainage, salinity drainage and street drainage are common examples.
A new word – “floodage” – will be used to mean the provision of equivalent systems, urban or rural,
formal or informal, for management of larger quantities of excess runoff and / or other forms of
undesirable inundation. This gives “floodage” a contextual meaning similar to the words “drainage”
and “sewerage”. An on-line search of international dictionaries showed no listings for the word
“floodage”, so the risk of misappropriation is acceptably small! “Floodage” is used to represent the
elements of flood management that are specifically to do with assessing, mitigating or accommodating
the surface flows, as distinct from the many other important activities involved in “flood management”.
“Local” means neighbourhood scale. By conventional application in the Melbourne area, “local” refers
to “catchment neighbourhoods” that are not greater than about 60 hectares in area1. The same broad
concept can be implied in non-metropolitan towns and cities. In the rural context, “local” is used in the
sense of any properties in a particular catchment locality or neighbourhood, less constrained by the
size of the catchment.
“Trunk” refers to drainage lines and flood paths that service areas larger than the “local” scale referred
to above. “Main Drains” under the old MMBW Act, 1958 are a pertinent example. “Trunk” hence
1
This stems from a circa 1922 agreement between the then Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and the
Councils that constituted the Metropolis of Melbourne at that time.
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
8 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
represents the scale between “local” and “whole catchment” where this is relevant.
“Regional” is used largely in accordance with the ten catchment management “regions” in Victoria, but
also meaning a scale that is bigger than “trunk” where this is relevant. At the macro scale, regional
generally includes whole catchments or groups of catchments at the sub-state scale.
“Urban” and “rural” will be used in their conventional senses.
Table 1 shows the primary or “lead” accountabilities for various aspects of the water cycle in Victoria,
as perceived by the author – acknowledging that opinions on some of the detailed content will differ.
The focus is on the main hydrologic activity areas. The table illustrates the general spread of
operational functions and accountabilities, and reveals some of the gaps and inconsistencies. The
fact that the arrangements for drainage and floodage do NOT echo any aspects of the continuous
runoff spectrum discussed in Section 2 is an important point.
It is clear that the arrangements are somewhat complicated – hence the “scrambled eggs” metaphor in
the heading. This current complexity is a result of past history, and, as such, must be respected.
However, it certainly impedes the articulation of a more integrated approach to the runoff spectrum.
Table 1 Leading Accountabilities for Various Functions for different Areas in Victoria
Generic
Function
Urban Drainage
Urban Floodage
Rural Drainage
Rural Floodage
Irrigation
Drainage
Salinity
Drainage
Septic tanks
Sewerage
Point Source
Runoff Pollution
Non-pt Source
Runoff Pollution
Irrigation Farm
Dams
Small Farm
Dams
Rainwater
Tanks
Re-Use
Allocation of Responsibilities
Port Phillip & Westernport
Other Regions
Region
Local
Trunk
Regional
Local
Trunk
Regional
Councils
MWC
MWC
Councils Councils
??
Councils
MWC
MWC
Councils Councils
CMAs
Various
MWC
MWC
Various
CMAs
CMAs
Various
MWC
MWC
Various
CMAs
CMAs
PLOs
SRW
SRW
PLOs
RWAs
??
State
Policy
DSE
DSE
DSE
DSE
DSE
PLOs
??
??
PLOs
Various
??
DSE
Councils
RWC
EPA
na
RWC
EPA
na
MWC
EPA
Councils
NMUs
EPA
na
NMUs
EPA
na
NMUs
EPA
EPA
DSE
EPA
Various
MWC
EPA
EPA
MWC /
SRW
na
DSE
Councils
CMAs
RWCs
CMAs
MWC /
SRW
PLOs
Councils
DPI
RWCs
DSE
DSE
na
PLOs
na
na
DSE
PLOs
na
na
PLOs
na
na
DSE
PLOs
PLDO
DSE /
DHS
PLOs
PLDO
DSE /
DHS
DSE,
DHS
MWC: Melbourne Water
EPA: Environment Protection Authority
DSE: Dept of Sustainability & Environment
DHS: Dept of Human Services
DPCD: Dept Planning & Community Development
DPI: Dept of Primary Industry
MDBC: Murray Darling Basin Commission
RWC: Retail Water Company
RWA: Rural Water Agency
NMU: Non-metropolitan Urban Water Agency
CMA: Catchment Management Authority
PLO: Private Land Owner
PLDO: Private Land Developer / Operator
The inconsistencies become further evident on examining the rigor of the accountabilities shown in
Table 1. In many cases, the accountabilities are broadly implied, or derived from various policy
statements or understood to exist by popular convention or historical precedent. The shaded boxes
provide pertinent examples. The “Various” boxes provide further examples. Inconsistencies abound.
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
9 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
For example, in relation to “floodage”, the role of floodplain management authorities including
Melbourne Water is clearly set out in the Water Act, 1989, whereas that of Councils is not. On the
other hand, Councils, who provide a wide range of on-ground drainage services, do so on the basis of
a one-word reference in the Local Government Act, 1989, whereas catchment management
authorities, who have more explicitly described “regional drainage” functions under Part 10, Division 3
of the Water Act, 1989, are rarely in a position to exercise them.
Referring back to the “team” analogy, all the organisations identified above are high quality players in
their own right. Further, very significant achievements have been made in many of the “positions on
the field”. There is no point in blaming the players. In addition, the evidence of wide participation in
collaborative projects and approaches indicates that it is not just a matter of better teamwork. Further,
there is little point in blaming any of the managers of the various “departments” that make up the
metaphorical sporting club. They are all doing their best according to their position descriptions and
discretionary powers.
So, could the issue be with the overall strategy or approach or campaign? This is a most important
question, given that a new one is being prepared. What changes should the new strategy
contemplate for the responsibilities of the different “departments” and “field positions”? Is there any
evidence that the changes could make things better? Would any other factors also have to change?
Who would this affect? Would support be wide enough?
4.2 Finance or Chook Raffles
To generalise, finance is always a limitation. There is never enough of it to cover all the things we
would like to achieve. And there is always difficulty in sharing the available funds across all the areas
of need. So some long-forgotten sporting club invented the “chook raffle”. It worked well, and the
underlying principle has been extended into wider usage – even as far as (to really stretch the
analogy) running incentive systems and grants programs, which have been invaluable in facilitating
progress in a great many otherwise unaffordable areas.
However, from a pragmatic perspective, reliable funding is essential to deliver reliable outcomes. And
the timescale of funding reliability must match the timescale of achieving the outcomes. Conversely,
there is little point in proposing a tug-boat strategy on a shoe-string budget. Four key challenges are
discussed below.
The first challenge is that the costs and benefits associated with the services provided are a complex
mix of public and private “goods”. Further, some of the costs and benefits are at least reasonably
tangible, while others are not – and some of these “others” are of considerable importance. This
necessitates a “public good” approach to evaluating financial issues. A balanced strategy should
articulate principles for dealing with costs and benefits, both tangible and intangible, in terms of both
the private and public domains.
A second challenge is the scarcity of closed loops. There are relatively few circumstances in which
the costs and benefits of particular decisions are internalised in the one set of accounts. For example,
the owner who develops floodprone land for residential purposes without mitigating all the flood risk
enjoys the profit from that development but passes on the costs of flood risk to numerous purchasers
– usually for little if any material consideration. This usually results in the public purse (via taxes, rates
etc) ultimately being asked to pay for the works required to mitigate the flood risk, to the benefit of the
local individuals who are understandably devastated in the wake of a significant flood. Another
example is that the benefits of some decisions such as approving a rezoning or subdivision of
floodprone land (more business activity, more rating revenue etc) are realised by a different “entity” –
such as a municipality – to that which will probably have to bear most of the costs of future mitigation
works or measures – such as a floodplain management authority or a state government.
A third challenge revolves around the diffusion of risk, accountability and responsibility, along with the
realisation that we can’t predict where or when the next flood will occur, and, even if we could, we
can’t prevent it. The costs of action are immediate and tangible, while the benefits are more nebulous
and harder to account for. To satisfy transparency requirements, the various players must resort to
detailed consultation, elaborate priority setting models and complicated benefit-cost analyses – and
hope that the funds will eventually be allocated from the potential sources. To some extent, this
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
10 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
embodies overlaps with the first two themes discussed above.
The fourth challenge for the strategy is to deal with financial issues and institutional arrangements in a
way that is consistent with policy – at a number of levels. For example, there is an Inter-Governmental
Agreement between the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Government. Essentially,
this agreement provides that the state will not impose further obligations on councils without providing
appropriate resources. Another issue is housing affordability. There are many others. It is prudent to
accept that a new strategy must pragmatically integrate with other areas of key policy influence if it is
to have any chance of making a difference.
On the commercial side, it is worth noting that the insurance industry is working to develop greater
transparency about flood insurance, which has been a vexed issue for many years. The issue of
whether or not a particular allotment or building is flood-prone is likely to result in whether or not it can
be insured against flood in the future – according to a common definition of flood and flood risk that
will be acceptable to the international re-insurance industry. This will raise the bar on the quality and
availability of data on flood risks. Given the current gaps and inconsistencies in the data across
Australia, the Insurance Council of Australia is evaluating a proposal to do a first cut analysis using a
uniform and robust, albeit approximate methodology. Could this result in different sets of information
being referenced for insurance versus planning and development purposes?
The new strategy will need to take these issues into account. If commercial interests and
considerations relating to flood risks continue to grow, so will the need for greater consistency in risk
assessment methods, timeliness of disclosure of results and transparency in property dealing
documentation. In turn, this will demand a greater level of certainty in funding and significant
clarification in some of the institutional arrangements. Better to be aware of these issues in advance
than to be caught unawares in the future.
4.3 The Individual Speaks Loudly
In a democratic society, people are the great leveller. It is essential to consider the overall community
implications of any course of action. However, final decisions are often more affected by the extreme
effects than the overall average. Who are the biggest winners and losers? How will inequalities be
minimised or mitigated? What are the compelling benefits of participation at the individual level?
The impact of flooding on individuals, as well as the impact of various management approaches is a
crucial issue that the strategy must address. It adds another layer to the puzzle – another aspect that
must be integrated into the “whole” approach. While space prohibits further discussion in this paper,
the issue needs to be raised. In the sporting club analogy, impacts and benefits for the different
“departments” (ie agencies) , the many different “players” AND all the individual “members” must be
regarded as equally important. “It’s for the greater good of the club” is generally not a sufficient
answer to the individual question “what’s in it for me?”
4.4 The Environment Joins In
At both the source catchment end and the receiving waters end, the environment is a common theme
in the runoff spectrum. And, as illustrated in earlier sections, some of the major issues are often
managed independently of others. Progress is better in some field positions than in others.
But where are we heading with this third bottom line? A common agreement on goals and objectives
and how they flow through all the different structures in the strategy will need to be set out. An
integrated “all-of-runoff” approach to the strategy will greatly facilitate this, but many of the details still
need to be developed.
5. OTHER AGENDAS = HEAVY TRAFFIC
Thus far, the paper has focussed on a broad, helicopter view of the runoff spectrum, which, in the
early work on issues, emerged as having the greatest potential for fruitful re-assessment. However,
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
11 of 12
Towards A New Victorian Flood Strategy
Ronan
before concluding, it is appropriate to mention some of the other issues and initiatives that have also
been identified and will need to be appropriately addressed in the new strategy. The author welcomes
any suggestions or comments on this list of any additions to it.





















Urban Drainage Strategy (DSE)
Flood Warning Service Plan Implementation (VFWAC)
State Flood Website Initiative (GBCMA)
Best Practice Manual Development (DSE)
Victorian Framework for Emergency Services (DoJ)
Victoria Planning Provisions – Clause 56 – Further Developments (DPCD)
Climate Change / Variability & Energy Predicaments (DP)
Water Ownership / Trading / Scarcity / Politics (DSE)
Water Sensitive Urban Design (Various)
Rainwater Tanks & Runoff Harvesting, Storage, Treatment and Re-use (various);
Sustainability & resilience thinking (evolution of ESD);
Review of Gippsland Floods (OESC)
Second Generation 5-Star (DPCD)
Flood Response Plan & Awareness Strategy (SES)
Levee Management Issues in Rural Victoria (DSE)
Environmental Flood Release Strategy (DSE)
Review of Municipal Emergency Management Plans & Flood Sub-plans – (DoJ)
Rural Drainage Issues (CMAs)
Port Phillip and Westernport Flood Management and Drainage Strategy (MWC)
Clear Water Program (MWC, EPA, MAV, SIAV)
Metropolitan Water Industry Structure Review (Victorian Government)
The above list is not exhaustive, and is likely to grow rather than diminish over the coming months.
The challenge is to collaborate and cooperate, navigate well, and avoid traffic jams and collisions.
Many people will help in this process.
6. CONCLUSIONS
A public draft of a revised Victoria Drainage / Flood Management Strategy is planned for release in
mid to late 2008. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. It is likely that some issues will
be resolved in this process, while others may be recommended for further work along specific lines.
The point of this paper is that the plan for future action should take an integrated view of the runoff
spectrum in the context of a changing global outlook. It should exploit as many synergies or
commonalities as possible on the one hand, and remove as many road blocks as possible on the
other. It is hoped that an “all-in” approach will deal with some of the “side issues” which hamper
progress but are not significant enough in their own right to address.
Comments, suggestions and queries from readers and conference participants are eagerly sought and
should be sent to the author at the e-mail address shown on the first page.
7. DISCLAIMER
The views and terminology in this paper reflect the professional perspectives of the author, recently
stimulated by diverse conversations with a large number of expert practitioners. They in no way reflect
the views or policies of either the Victorian Government or the Department of Sustainability and
Environment, who have commissioned the revision of the state’s flood strategy.
5th Flood Management Conference Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007
12 of 12