draft management response framework for rural drainage on the

Draft management response framework for rural drainage on the coastal plains of SW Western Australia: Statement of Response

Looking after all our water needs

Department of Water

October 2009

Department of Water 168 St Georges Terrace Perth Western Australia 6000 Telephone +61 8 6364 7600 Facsimile +61 8 6364 7601 www.water.wa.gov.au

© Government of Western Australia 2009

October 2009

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Department of Water.

ISBN 978-1-921675-56-0 (online)

For more information about this report, contact Krish Seewraj Senior Natural resource Management Officer South West regional office 35–39 McCombe Road Bunbury Western Australia 6230 or PO Box 261 Bunbury Western Australia 6231 Telephone 08 9726 4111 Facsimile 08 9726 4100


Department of Water iii

Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii

Preface ....................................................................................................................... iv

Summary .....................................................................................................................v

1 Background .............................................................................................................1

1.1 Catchment planning and management ............................................................................1 1.2 Coastal drainage plan ......................................................................................................2

2 Work to date ............................................................................................................3

2.1 Coastal drainage plan ......................................................................................................3 2.2 Draft management response framework ..........................................................................3

3 Statement of Response...........................................................................................6

3.1 Comments received and the department’s responses .....................................................6 3.2 List of respondents.........................................................................................................11

4 Proposed next stage .............................................................................................12

Appendices................................................................................................................13

Appendices

Appendix A — Cross Agency Coordinating Group on Drainage................................13

Appendix B — Stakeholders engaged in the discussion paper development ............15

Appendix C — Workshop attendees..........................................................................17

Appendix D — WA stormwater management objectives and principles ....................19

Appendix E — Draft policy framework for inland drainage ........................................21

Appendix F — Graphical representation of objectives...............................................26

Appendix G — Tabulated representation of objectives..............................................27

Figures

Figure 1 Coastal drainage scenario transition model .................................................. 4

Tables

Table 1 Interest groupings of respondents to the draft plan ........................................v Table 2 General comments ........................................................................................ 6 Table 3 Responsibilities and funding.......................................................................... 7 Table 4 Appropriate considerations for change.......................................................... 8 Table 5 Technical errors........................................................................................... 10 Table 6 Respondents to call for comments .............................................................. 11


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

iv Department of Water

Preface This statement is the Department of Water’s response to comments received on the draft management response framework. As this was a draft document, this framework was provided only to targeted stakeholders who were involved in the early stages of the coastal drainage plan that initiated this work.

All of the comments received will be considered as part of the on-going work to finalise the framework.


Department of Water v

Summary The draft framework was open for a one-month targeted stakeholder comment period, from 3 April to 1 May 2009. Following a request by some stakeholders, this period was extended by two weeks to 15 May 2009. The purpose of this comment period was to ensure that the direction the department had taken in this area of work was acceptable to stakeholders with a vested interest in rural drainage.

Letters inviting comment on the draft framework were sent to:

local government authorities (eight representatives from six authorities)

other government departments (four representatives from two departments)

industry associations, industry representatives and environmental groups (11 representatives from five organisations).

Six submissions were received during the draft framework comment period from a range of interest groups (Table 1). We appreciate the effort put into these submissions.

This statement responds to the comments and, where appropriate, summarises how they will be incorporated into the next stages of this work – during which the draft framework will be developed into a more detailed and rigorous final proposal.

Table 1 Interest groupings of respondents to the draft plan

Interest group No. of submissions

Local government 2

Agriculture 1

Service provider 2

Regulator 1


Department of Water 1

1 Background

1.1 Catchment planning and management

Over recent years there have been a number of catchment-based initiatives established that aim to improve water quality. These initiatives provide recommendations made on best practice and available science that aim to enhance the management of factors that affect water quality catchment-wide. Initiatives have been established to various degrees in the Vasse Wonnerup wetlands and the Geographe Bay, Leschenault, Peel–Harvey, Swan Canning, Torbay, Wilson and Hardy Inlet catchments.

To achieve water quality improvement at a catchment level there is a need to assess and influence point sources of contaminants, as well as the conveyance systems that transport them. As a result of developments in land care since the 1990s, many processes have been started that involve an element of managing water quality. Some of these comprise strategic directions, while others have been embedded in regulatory processes.

Many point source attributes are now regulated to varying degrees through an integrated land and water planning framework.

All forms of conveyance systems (including the natural waterway systems) were managed initially to achieve water quantity outcomes that reduced periods of inundation and localised in-catchment flooding; however:

waterways are now regulated with a focus on ecological health and, as such, both water quality and quantity are taken into account

urban drainage objectives have been widened to include a broad spectrum of aspects, including water quantity and quality.

Rural drainage differs from the other conveyance systems in that there has been minimal change in the manner they have been operated. The Water Services Operating Licence No 32 outlines only one operational requirement; that is that the service provider is to “operate and maintain its rural drainage infrastructure so that the period of inundation to land abutting a drain that forms part of the system shall be a maximum of 72 hours.”

Therefore, in relation to implementing catchment-based initiatives to enhance the overall catchment water quality, rural drainage (through a traditional conveyance-dominated approach to operation) has little or no consideration of the downstream impact of water quantity and no consideration of water quality.


2 Department of Water

1.2 Coastal drainage plan

In 2006, the state government renewed its focus on strategic drainage planning, governance and funding. The Department of Water was tasked with undertaking the work and set up the following three areas for action that covered drainage issues across the state:

Urban drainage initiative

Coastal drainage plan

Inland drainage.

The coastal drainage plan differed from the urban drainage initiative and inland drainage in two ways:

The majority of drainage networks are established and unlikely to be expanded; being located predominantly within drainage districts declared under the Land Drainage Act 1925.

While there have been previous attempts to streamline ownership and maintenance responsibilities, the governance of the drainage networks has not changed significantly over time.

The focus on coastal drainage was to:

review the traditional conveyance-dominated approach to operation in the light of current requirements

assess the fragmented management of drainage issues in coastal areas of the South West.

These areas mainly covered the six drainage districts of Mundijong, Waroona, Harvey, Roelands, Busselton and Albany and, in addition, the Scott River catchment.

One of the key aims of this work was to balance the benefits of drainage for agricultural production, and the transition in some areas to urban development, with the need to maintain healthy catchments. This aligned with the aim of the catchment-based initiatives to improve water quality by identifying actions that supported the recommendations related to rural drainage.



2 Work to date

2.1 Coastal drainage plan

The coastal drainage plan has been in operation since 2006. The primary aim was to introduce a multiple objective approach through best management practice, planning advice and assessment and governance. Ultimately, if deemed appropriate, it was envisaged that a new governance framework would be developed to allow water quantity and quality (including downstream impacts) to be considered throughout the planning, design, operation and maintenance of the system. Through the Cross Agency Coordinating Group on Drainage, appropriate stakeholders have been kept informed of progress with the coastal drainage plan. Further details of this group are provided in Appendix A.

In the first year of operation, a discussion paper was prepared based on key issues being faced by stakeholders at the regional level. Stakeholders involved in this process are listed in Appendix B. This approach was adopted because the majority of the rural drainage networks on the coastal plains are well established, and regional stakeholders have been dealing with management and operational issues related to the existing system for some time. The discussion paper and accompanying brochure are available on the Department of Water’s website <www.water.wa.gov.au>.

High priority issues identified through the development of the discussion paper were further investigated in the second year. One focus area concentrated on assessing how the existing rural drainage design manuals and operating and maintenance practices may be reviewed in light of current requirements. An issues paper identified stakeholders with a vested interest, current practices and issues, and alternative approaches that could be considered. The stakeholders were invited to a workshop to allow open discussion of the findings of this paper with the aim of agreeing if and how such a review could be implemented.

This workshop was attended by a wide range of stakeholders and was well attended by the Water Corporation and also the Economic Regulation Authority. A full list of attendees is provided in Appendix C. The outcome was that, before being able to review the design manuals and operating and maintenance practices, an assessment was required to identify what the current objectives should comprise.

During the third year, a process for holistically assessing practical current objectives was prepared in the form of a draft management response framework.

2.2 Draft management response framework

When the system was constructed, the primary objective of drainage on the coastal plain was to ensure productive agricultural land was accessible. Due to varying local conditions such as soil types and seasonal groundwater levels, the function of the drainage networks can differ between and within the same catchments.



In the initial stage of setting up a way to review current objectives and assess the management responses required to implement those objectives, it was not viable to undertake detailed or individual catchment level assessments to take account of these variables. Therefore, a holistic approach was used on the basis that many of the management responses could be applied on a conditional basis, i.e. they are used only where it is both appropriate and practical.

Current objectives and principles of drainage systems have previously been assessed (with considerable community consultation) in work on urban drainage and more recently through inland drainage. The results from these works is provided in Appendix D and E. Rather than repeat these lengthy public consultation processes, and in view of considerable targeted stakeholder consultation undertaken in the previous stages of the coastal drainage plan, it was considered appropriate to review and, if relevant, use the findings of these works.

The primary aim of protecting developed land and the locality within the catchment of urban drainage were assessed as being similar to rural drainage on the coastal plains. Inland drainage was considered to be significantly different, generally comprising deep drainage with a focus on groundwater control in the wheatbelt and to a lesser extent in the wool belt. Therefore, the WA urban stormwater management objectives were considered appropriate to adopt for rural drainage.

However, in view of different land use and scales, the level at which these objectives should be applied needed to be assessed. This was done by developing a succession of scenarios in which progressively more varied and comprehensive objectives were applied. This model was set up in a similar fashion to the water sensitive cities model, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Coastal drainage scenario transition model

The sole objective is water

conveyance to facilitate land use

The main objective is water conveyance,

with consideration for water quantity and

quality impacts through controlled

localised flooding and stock control

The primary objective is water conveyance, with both off- and on-

stream best management

practices being adopted to manage water quantity and

quality impacts

The key objectives are water

conveyance and managing water

quantity and quality impacts, with an

emphasis on providing a

mechanism for managing water

reuse

The key objectives are water

conveyance, managing water

quantity and quality impacts and

controlling water reuse, with a strong

emphasis on improving the

ecological health of the system

Open

drainage system Controlled

drainage system Managed

drainage system Controlled

waterway system Managed

waterway system

Objectives



For each scenario, the objectives and level of application are presented in graphical and tabular form in Appendix F and G. The changes required to the existing governance structure for rural drainage to enable the objectives for each scenario to be made effective were assessed at a coarse level, along with associated risks.

A draft management response framework document was prepared which outlined the model and, for each scenario, the objectives, the management response to support these objectives, and the outstanding risks.

This document was provided to attendees (listed in Appendix C) of the workshop that initiated this work. The department’s responses to comments received from this review process have been provided in Section 3.



3 Statement of Response

3.1 Comments received and the department’s responses

The following tables summarise the main issues and questions raised through the targeted consultation process and the department’s response (Tables 2 to 5). The comments have been grouped by the type of issue raised by the submissions, with most of the comments received being concerned with responsibility, funding and specific details related to appropriate change. A list of the respondents and their associated interest group is given in Section 3.2 (Table 6).

Table 2 General comments

Comment Department of Water response

Support for the concept

Five respondents expressed their support for the draft document as a positive step in reviewing the appropriate current objectives and related management responses.

The Department of Water values the respondents’ support for the draft document.

Consultation

Four respondents stated that, as development of the framework into a final model occurs, further consultation is considered essential and expressed their willingness to be involved.

We will ensure that relevant stakeholders will continue to be informed of progress and given opportunity to have input on major issues and concerns.

Their collective knowledge and experience is considered critical to developing a practical and rigorous strategy.

Linkages with other initiatives

Two respondents questioned the relationship between the proposed framework and other strategic initiatives, e.g. water quality improvement plans and other state and Commonwealth strategies.

We acknowledge that the draft report did not clearly articulate the relationship of this work with other strategic initiatives. This relationship has been documented in Section 1 of this report.



Table 3 Responsibilities and funding


Current responsibilities

Two respondents had concerns that the community service obligation (CSO) funding from state government is only for operation and maintenance of existing drains under the current legislation and the operating licence issued by the Economic Regulation Authority. Both respondents stated that the current requirements were for managing water quantity, but not quality.

We recognise that the current operation of drainage does not take account of water quality.

The aim of this work is to assess whether the objectives that have been in place for considerable time without significant change are still appropriate and if not how they should be enhanced.

Future responsibilities

Two respondents stated that the transfer of ownership of current responsibilities is not considered desirable and, while there is no clear statement within the document indicating such changes, this needs to be clarified.

The results of documented work we have undertaken to date has not raised the need for changes in asset ownership or splitting responsibilities within the operating licence.

Use of incentive based change

Two respondents questioned why the framework does not consider regulatory surrogates such as education or reward-based mechanisms. One suggested that the framework was too dependent upon regulatory intervention.

We acknowledge that the natural resource management network plays an important role in catchment management. However, much of this work is based on relatively short-term localised education and reward programs with landholders.

Rural drainage is predominantly managed by a single service provider and a review of the funding and operating arrangements are needed to enable long term state-wide outcomes.




Level of detail

Two respondents felt that while the document provides an assessment of likely change it does not provide the level of detail that is required to allow change to occur.

We developed the draft document to provide a mechanism for developing a framework with progressively more comprehensive scenarios. Support for this framework was required from targeted stakeholders before additional resources would be allocated to assess the scenarios in greater detail.

Funding

One respondent stated that the document does not adequately assess how the proposed changes would be funded. The respondent also specifically expressed concerns that the document does not adequately assess the economic viability of the proposals that require land acquisition.

We assessed funding issues in Section 5.3 of the draft document. It is clearly identified that a cost-benefit analysis would be required to support any final recommendations.

Table 4 Appropriate considerations for change


Catchment focus

Three respondents noted that the document assesses change holistically across all drainage catchments, where in reality there are varying characteristics between and within individual catchments that make holistic changes less effective and potentially detrimental. One respondent specifically stated that the document made no reference to the need for drainage in some areas to control elevated groundwater levels.

We acknowledge that some best management practices are not appropriate for all catchments or all drainage infrastructure within specific catchments.

However, many practices may be applied universally, with conditions applied. The need for flexibility is recognised and will be built into the next stages of this work.




Catchment management

One respondent stated that water quality management at a catchment level requires control and regulation of land-use practices and that this should be undertaken by responsible state government agencies.

One respondent suggested that some strategies have not been well thought out and are not technically feasible, such as water reuse.

We acknowledge that to improve the management of water at a catchment scale there are numerous facets, including the need for point source control through land-use planning. This is expanded upon in Section 1 of this document.

We appreciate that not all of the strategies identified in the draft document are appropriate for all drainage catchments or all drainage infrastructure within each catchment. The aim of the draft report was to highlight potential strategies that will be further analysed in future stages of this work.

In relation to water reuse, it has been shown through works by the Peel–Harvey Catchment Council on the Dirk Brook project, that water reuse can be implemented successfully in specific cases.

Climate change

One respondent considered that account will need to be taken of climate variability and the risk management of drainage functionality in relation to predicted sea level rises and storm surges.

Numerous works are being undertaken to assess the impact of climate change and the findings from these works will be incorporated into the later stages of this work.

This will be for both predicted sea level rises and storm surges and variations in rainfall patterns in occurrences where they will impact on the objectives identified as being appropriate for each scenario.




Supporting research

One respondent considered that the effectiveness of proposed best management practices is not adequately known to allow their economic viability to be assessed.

Through work in the second year of the coastal drainage plan, a comprehensive review was undertaken of best management practices and the amount of research was identified as being highly variable.

The Department of Food and Agriculture has undertaken and continues to undertake research programs into a number of practices (e.g. vegetative buffers) and through the urban drainage initiative we are initiating research programs for other practices.

Interface with urban development

Two respondents identified that where rural drainage interfaces with urban drainage there is a need to address changing focuses and create clear policies.

Water Corporation Information sheet no. 59 outlines the current policy for urban development in rural drainage districts and requirements for urban development proposals.

We are working with the Water Corporation to review this policy, through a process initiated through the urban drainage initiative.

Table 5 Technical errors


The first paragraph of Section 5.3 states ‘Currently the Water Corporation is funded by the Economic Regulation Authority, due to the service provision being a community service obligation’.

One respondent identified this as being incorrect, with the state government funding community service obligations and the Economic Regulation Authority regulating the operating licence.

We acknowledge this textual error and have changed the text in the draft document to prevent recurrence in later stages of this work.




Footnote 7 on page 8 states ‘Areas that are protected from flooding by Water Corporation’s rural drainage assets are recorded in the operating licence together with the degree of protection provided (Water Corporation, 2006).’

One respondent stated that the operating licence does not indicate ‘the degree of protection provided’ where it indicates it will be drained in three days – as there is no corresponding relationship to a minimum required level of service (ARI) stated.

The reference identified is made in relation to flood protection works as specified in clause 8.9 (page 32 of 38) of the operating licence, for which the level of protection (ARI) is specified.

3.2 List of respondents

Table 6 Respondents to call for comments

Interest group Respondents

Local government Shire of Busselton

Shire of Harvey

Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Food (individual officer comments only)

Service provider Water Corporation Development Services Branch

Water Corporation Infrastructure Planning Branch

Regulator Economic Regulation Authority (individual officer comments only)



4 Proposed next stage The draft management response framework will be developed into a more detailed and rigorous proposal, taking into account the collective knowledge and experience of targeted stakeholders. Once complete, a cost-benefit analysis of the scenarios outlined in the model will be undertaken.

The detailed framework and supporting cost-benefit analysis will then allow a holistic assessment of which scenario can be practically and economically implemented to achieve an agreed and acceptable level of change in the governance of rural drainage.



Appendices

Appendix A — Cross Agency Coordinating Group on Drainage

The Cross Agency Coordinating Group on Drainage was established to ensure relevant stakeholders were kept informed of work the Department of Water undertook to meet the renewed focus on strategic drainage planning, governance and funding.

This group held quarterly meetings between July 2006 and August 2008. After this time the purpose of the group was reassessed and renamed the Water Sensitive Cities Reference Group.

The membership and terms of reference of the original group have been provided below.

Membership

Andrew Bruce (City of Armadale) Andrew Watson (Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia) Bob Nulsen (Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia) John Ruprecht (Department of Water – Chair) Greg Davis (Department of Water) Sandra McKenzie (Department of Water – Exec Officer) Mike Mouritz (Department of Planning) Mark Jefferies (Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia) Rebecca Duffy (New WAter Ways) Judith Harley (Urban Development Institute of Australia) Mark Batty (Western Australian Local Government Association) Meg Anklesaria (Water Corporation) Steve Hiller (Water Corporation) Mark Tonti (Water Corporation).

Terms of Reference and operating arrangements

Purpose of committee

To advise Department of Water and assist in:

development of a state-wide drainage management framework

coordination of catchment water management/drainage activities

development of a strategic drainage policy

preparation of strategic drainage plans

networking with stakeholders

addressing water management issues.

Operation of committee

To assist the smooth running of meetings and to ensure sufficient review time:



agenda items to Sandra McKenzie at least one week prior to meeting

agenda circulated one week prior to meeting

formality of members – some coopted for particular issues; scope to bring in extra agency reps as required – e.g. two reps per agency, reporting through WRCSC

discretion of Chair for the inclusion of late items.

The working group aims to develop a process where drainage management takes a partnership approach, where discussions on planning and operation were iterative.

Progression of issues to Water Resources Cabinet Standing Committee (WRCSC)

Aim is that much of the work of the coordinating group was to reach consensus on issues and that there would be three types of papers.

Those seeking endorsement from all members of the group would be circulated for endorsement prior to submission to WRCSC (noting that this may take three months to achieve).

Those putting a single agency position may be circulated for comment from coordinating group, with comments being representing in the briefing paper but not in the report.

Those submitted by an agency without consultation, i.e. only one agency responsibility.

Papers from the meetings not to be circulated without agreement from the Chair/Executive officer.

Meeting frequency

Group agreed to meet on a monthly basis on the 3rd Friday of each month from 2–5pm. Meeting dates for 2008 are:

15 February

23 May

15 August

21 November

All meetings will be held at Department of Water; Boardroom, Level 6 (but come to ground reception on St Georges Terrace), The Atrium, 168 St Georges Terrace, Perth unless otherwise advised.



Appendix B — Stakeholders engaged in the discussion paper development

Name Organisation

Krish Seewraj (Project manager)

Department of Water (South West Region)

Greg Davis (Project lead team member)

Department of Water (Head Office)

Verity Klemm (Project lead team member)

Department of Water (Head Office)

Bob Pond (Project lead team member)

Department of Water (Peel Harvey Region)

Naomi Arrowsmith (Project lead team member)

Department of Water (South Coast Region)

Bev Thurlow (Project lead team member)


Wayne Tingey (Project lead team member)


Greg Hales Blackwood Basin Group

Linda Raynor Blackwood Basin Group

Adam Lilicrap Department of Agriculture and Food

David Weaver Department of Agriculture and Food

Rob Summers Department of Agriculture and Food

Artemis Kitsios Department of Environment and Conservation

Christian Zammit Department of Environment and Conservation

Chris Gunby Department of Water (South Coast Region)

Dave Rushton Department of Water (South Coast Region)

Julie Pech Department of Water (South Coast Region)

Karen McKeough Department of Water (South Coast Region)

Steve May Department of Water (South Coast Region)



Name Organisation

Mike McKenna Department of Water (South West Region)

Richard Pickett Department of Water (South West Region)

Allan Pastega Department of Water (SW Region)

Barry Oats GeoCatch

Brendan Oversby GeoCatch

Hal Scott GeoCatch

Kirrily White GeoCatch

Martin Pritchard GeoCatch

Robin Flowers GeoCatch

Andrew Del Marco Ironbark Environmental

Cameron Sutherland Leschenault Catchment Council

Ian Noakes Lower Blackwood LCDC

Damien Postma Peel Harvey Catchment Council

Jan Star Peel Harvey Catchment Council

Merryn Delaney Shire of Augusta and Margaret River Landcare Officer

Barbara Dunnet Shire of Nannup

Graham Wright Water Corporation

Jacinta Hewitt Water Corporation

Jackie Hasler Water Corporation

John Moon Water Corporation



Appendix C — Workshop attendees

Name Organisation

Gae Synnott (facilitator)

Synnott Mulholland

Tom Opie (facilitator)

Cardno BSD

Lorraine Bastow (facilitator)

Cardno BSD

Nigel Archibald City of Bunbury

Darren Dropulich City of Rockingham

Rob Summers Department of Agriculture and Food

Don Bennett Department of Agriculture and Food

Jerome Goh Department of Main Roads

Minhdu Nguyen Department of Main Roads

Greg Davis Department of Water

Krish Seewraj Department of Water

Jason Lette Department of Water

Mick Geaney Economic Regulation Authority

Jesse Steele Peel–Harvey Catchment Council

Andrew Del Marco Peel–Harvey Catchment Council

Neema Premji Shire of Busselton

David Brash Shire of Busselton

Peter Anderson Shire of Harvey

Damien Morgan Shire of Harvey

Paul Webb Shire of Waroona



Name Organisation

Nino Scidone Town of Kwinana

Robin Flowers Vasse Zone WA Farmers

Kevin Chinnery Water Corporation

James Wegner Water Corporation

Ted Evans Water Corporation

Chris Elliott Water Corporation

Graham Wright Water Corporation

Ted Evans Water Corporation

Patrick Clohessy Westnet Rail



Appendix D — WA stormwater management objectives and principles

Objectives:

Water quality

To maintain or improve the surface and groundwater quality within the development areas relative to pre-development conditions.

Water quantity

To maintain the total water cycle balance within development areas relative to the pre-development conditions.

Water conservation

To maximise the reuse of stormwater.

Ecosystem health

To retain natural drainage systems and protect ecosystem health.

Economic viability

To implement stormwater management systems that are economically viable in the long-term.

Public health

To minimise the public risk, including risk of injury or loss of life, to the community.

Protection of property

To protect the built environment from flooding and waterlogging.

Social values

To ensure that social, aesthetic and cultural values are recognised and maintained when managing stormwater.

Development

To ensure the delivery of best practice stormwater management through planning and development of high quality developed areas in accordance with sustainability and precautionary principles.

Principles:

Incorporate water resource issues as early as possible in the land-use planning process.

Address water resource issues at the catchment and sub-catchment level.

Ensure stormwater management is part of total water cycle and natural resource management.



Define stormwater quality management objectives in relation to the sustainability of the receiving environment.

Determine stormwater management objectives through adequate and appropriate community consultation and involvement.

Ensure stormwater management planning is precautionary, recognises inter-generational equity, conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity.

Recognise stormwater as a valuable resource and ensure its protection, conservation and reuse.

Recognise the need for site specific solutions and implement appropriate non-structural and structural solutions.



Appendix E — Draft policy framework for inland drainage

Wheatbelt Drainage Council — Draft policy framework for inland drainage

This framework recognises that inland drainage is an option to achieve improved water resource and dryland salinity management outcomes.

Aim

To facilitate the use of drainage as an option to manage salinity and waterlogging in inland Western Australia.

This aim is to be achieved by addressing the key areas of governance, risk management, planning and assessment, construction, operation and maintenance.

Governance

Objective

To ensure appropriate governance procedures are in place before drainage construction commences.

Principles

Transparency and consistency – Governance of inland drainage schemes will be transparent and consistent.

Acceptable environmental impacts – Inland drainage should result in an overall environmental benefit.

Benefits – Inland drainage will aim to achieve a positive balance between environmental, social and economic factors.

Adaptive management – Inland drainage will embrace an adaptive management approach which is supported by effective monitoring and evaluation.

Compliance – Inland drainage shall comply with all relevant standards, legislation and regulations and be consistent with best management practice.

Access arrangements – Appropriate access arrangements to land for drainage construction, operation and maintenance will be established.

Decision making – Information and views from key stakeholders including landowners/managers will be considered during the decision-making process.

Scale – Different scales of inland drainage may require different approaches.

Beneficiary contributes – Beneficiaries should contribute towards planning, risk management, construction, operation and maintenance of drainage proposals.

Public funding – Where public investment is proposed it will be consistent with government policy.



Strategies

Clearly define present and future roles, responsibilities and structures for:

policy development and delivery

catchment planning

assessment of proposals

project planning, implementation and management.

Use best practice stakeholder engagement throughout the governance processes.

Where public funding is sought, proponents shall be required to show defensible estimates of costs and benefits. These costs and benefits shall not only be articulated in financial terms, but also in social and environmental terms. Identification of affected parties and beneficiaries shall be required.

Risk management

Objective

To ensure inland drainage achieves an overall improvement in the management of salinity, waterlogging and the environment.

Principles

Sustainable outcome – Inland drainage should result in a positive triple bottom line outcome, having consideration of all potential public, private, community, environmental and economic benefits and impacts.

Managing risks – Risks should be identified, understood and managed; and where risks are not well defined, monitoring and adaptive management is a valid approach to managing those risks.

Appropriate investigation and planning – Risk management decisions should be made on the basis of appropriate investigations concerning all options, including the risks associated with taking no action, to identify and address key risks to the community, environment and economy, including downstream impacts.

Representative decision-making – Decision-making must involve all affected landowners and other stakeholders.

Strategies

Ensure all stakeholders including federal, state and local government and land managers have ownership of the policy framework for inland drainage, including roles and responsibilities.

Develop protocols for triple bottom line assessment.

Develop a strategy to address state, local government and land managers’ capacity to research, plan, assess, construct, operate and govern.



Develop environmental criteria and/or targets for the management of discharge and the identification of disposal options.

Identify and analyse risks to infrastructure and other assets for the affected drainage proposal, including risks associated if no action is taken.

Planning and assessment

Objective

To ensure drainage proposals are adequately planned and assessed within an agreed process.

Principles

Catchment management – Inland drainage should be considered within an integrated catchment management framework, where drainage is considered as part of the total water cycle and the quality of drainage water is managed together with the quantity.

Environmental assessment – Predicted impacts (positive and negative) on the immediate and surrounding environment should be identified and described. Investigation and planning of the site and disposal areas shall be at a level appropriate to, and accurately represent the scale, potential benefits and risk assessment/impacts of the drainage scheme.

Public good – The level of public good expected should be identified and commensurate with the scale and risk of the proposal.

Best practice – Inland drainage proposals shall demonstrate practice appropriate to the project scale and level of risks relevant to planning, design, consultation, construction and ongoing operation and management, including consideration of use and recycling of discharge water.

Participation – In line with best practice, individuals and stakeholders affected by drainage proposals should have an opportunity to participate in planning to express/represent their perspectives, promote understanding of these perspectives, identify issues to be addressed, reveal the level of support for the proposal and avoid adverse impacts.

Funding – Costs for design, construction, operation and maintenance shall be identified, allocated and agreed to for the life of the project.

Governance – Inland drainage proposals shall document proposed governance structures, including organisational and financial arrangements and outline intentions for detailed design, access, construction, operation and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation. This will include allocation of liabilities.

Precautionary principle – Inland drainage proposals will be assessed using the precautionary principle and must examine the full range of alternatives and not immediately opt for no action.



"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action."

Wingspread statement on the Precautionary Principle, January 1998.

Strategies

Develop an improved assessment process for inland drainage proposals which can be implemented in the short-term within the current Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945.

Identify the capability and resourcing needs for the improved assessment process.

Compile existing catchment information and ensure information about receiving environments is available to stakeholders.

Identify, document and release best practice guidelines, including methodologies for engineering design.

Develop guidelines for the preparation of inland drainage proposals, which includes a checklist and indicative timing for assessment. Proposals should require pre-consultation with the assessment authority and outline:

reporting requirements for the life of the project including, where necessary, costs associated with decommissioning

agreed roles, responsibilities, scheduling and funding for all project stages

agreed arrangements for land tenure and access

indicative best practice designs and construction methodologies

the inclusion of an operation and management plan which outlines arrangements for governance, operation and maintenance of drains for the duration, including appropriate and ongoing monitoring, evaluation and contingency plans.

Identify the preferred future processes for the assessment of inland drainage proposals, including legislative changes required.

Document approval requirements, and develop a coordinated approach for inland drainage.

Develop guidelines, standards and targets for quality and quantity of discharge of drainage water.

Investigate options for accreditation, or best management practice guidelines for/of service providers, designers, contractors and/or assessors.



Operation and maintenance

Objective

To ensure the ongoing operation of inland drainage achieves better outcomes for the management of salinity, waterlogging and the environment.

Principles

Ongoing management – Operation, monitoring and reporting of performance is required to facilitate adaptive management responses and effective learning.

Compliance – The proponent of a drain shall carry out the ongoing operations and maintenance of the drain in a responsible manner, consistent with an agreed management plan.

Adaptive management – Modifications may be required to the design or operation of a drain to ensure achievement of performance objectives.

Strategies

Develop standard reporting methods to facilitate collection of appropriate performance monitoring data.

Use performance data to review and update best management practice information.

Use an applied science approach for research and development to review and update best management practice information.

Develop an appropriate data management system which facilitates audit of drainage performance as appropriate.

Definitions

Inland – South West land division excluding urban drainage areas or gazetted drainage districts.

Drainage – The facilitated removal of surface and sub-surface water from a given area.

Governance – How and by whom the planning and assessment, risk management and operation and maintenance of inland drainage is implemented.

Policy framework – A set of principles and long-term goals that form the basis of making rules and guidelines, and to give overall direction to government planning and development.

Public good – The whole-of-community benefits the project will bring which are over and above the benefit to the proponent.



Appendix F — Graphical representation of objectives

Open drainage system

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

High

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty

DevelopmentPublic Health

Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

High

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

High

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Lo

w

Med

ium

High

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservationWat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Controlled drainage system

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservationWat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Managed drainage system

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

edium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservationWat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Controlled waterway system

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservationWat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Managed waterway system

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservationWat

er Q

uant

ity

Water Quality

Pro

tect

ion

of P

rope

rty


Social V

alues

Ecosystem Health

Water C

onservation

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Low

Medium

High

Low MediumHigh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Lo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Lo

wM

ediu

mH

igh

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Low

Medium

High

LowMedium

High

Key:

Objectives

Characteristics

Objectives

Characteristics



Appendix G — Tabulated representation of objectives

Objectives Applicationlevel

Additional characteristics

Applicationlevel

Open drainage system

Water quantity High Water quality


Development

Low

Low

Low

Controlled drainage system

Water quantity

Water quality


High

Medium

Medium

Development

Public health

Social values

Ecosystem health

Water conservation

Low

Low

Low

Low

Medium

Managed drainage system

Water quantity

Water quality


Water conservation

High

High

Medium

Medium

Development

Public health

Social values

Ecosystem health

Low

Medium

Medium

Low

Controlled waterway system

Water quantity

Water quality


Water conservation

High

High

Medium

High

Development

Public health

Social values

Ecosystem health

High

Medium

Medium

Medium



Objectives Applicationlevel

Additional Characteristics

Applicationlevel

Managed waterway system

Ecosystem health

Water quantity

Water quality


Water conservation

High

High

High

Medium

High

Development

Public health

Social values

High

High

High

Looking after all our water needs

Department of Water168 St Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia

PO Box K822 Perth Western Australia 6842Phone: (08) 6364 7600

Fax: (08) 6364 7601www.water.wa.gov.au

draft management response framework for rural drainage on the

Documents