submission to the inquiry into flood … · submission to the inquiry into flood mitigation...

SUBMISSION TO THE INQUIRY INTO FLOOD MITIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN VICTORIA

Environment and Natural Resources Committee of State Parliament

September 2011 Submitted on behalf of the Mayor and Councillors of the by: Warwick Heine Chief Executive Officer P.O. Box 1

Wycheproof, Vic. 3527

Buloke Shire Council

Inquiry into flood mitigation infrastructure in Victoria

Submission no.95 Received 23 September 2011

Buloke Shire CouncilSubmission to the Inquiry into Flood Mitigation Infrastructure in Victoria

2

2 | P a g e

BULOKE SHIRE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Terms of Reference (a) - identifying best practice and emerging technology for flood mitigation and monitoring infrastructure including river gauges

1. While a review of flood mitigation infrastructure is a critical step to mitigate against

future flood disasters, this should not be done without a comprehensive review and

rationalisation of roles, responsibilities and functions of Authorities currently

designated with a role in water “management”. To better and more effectively and

efficiently apply limited resources, it may also be timely to consolidate and confer all

water functions under the management and control of one entity.

2. Improvements need to be made to river and creek monitoring. The number of

measuring devices needs to be increased and their reliability improved, especially as

information provided from these devices to the ICC in times of emergency are essential

in to keeping the community informed of the likelihood and impact of flood. This

information is essential to the planning and implementation of response and recovery

activities. New measuring devices are needed on the Avon/Richardson River and Tyrell

Creek. There are currently no gauges on the Avon/ Richardson system and installation

of flood warning devices on this river system should be made a priority given the impacts

of the September 2010 and December 2011 flood events.

3. There is a clear need for the modelling of various flood scenarios along the Avoca River

and Tyrell Creek. The North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) has

data that shows that similar scale floods have occurred in the past, but the possible

increasing intensity of certain weather events, the changing nature of the landscape

through different farming methods, changing communities and built environments and

greater community expectations (especially since Black Saturday), now requires that

more modelling needs to be done to get a better understanding of how such events

might impact on people in the future.

4. During the January 2011 flood event Some Councils used their own staff and community

members to monitor and provide information to their MECC and to their own

communities about river height levels. This happened on an informal basis largely

outside of Emergency Management arrangements. Some in the community have

suggested the historic practice of the appointment of ‘river wardens’ be revived as a

means of formalising this activity. Council does not see this as a responsibility of Local

Government and would be reluctant to support such an initiative without Government

undertaking a thorough examination of the statutory implications, and of the resources

required to train, maintain and support it.


3

3 | P a g e

5. The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) needs to ensure that it has all relevant information,

including accurate and reliable river height data in the various weather districts across

the State. BOM should give further consideration to the definition of weather districts that

it uses so that people can readily identify whether their location is in the district is at risk.

6. Planning and building solutions provide part of an approach to flood mitigation. It is

possible that while specific flood studies will be able to inform future planning and

building standards and where such standards should be applied, they need to be

considered and balanced against potential costs, risks and other mitigating options.

Council remains concerned about how planning and building requirements can be

applied retrospectively to provide protection to existing buildings and whether that is

appropriate.

7. Detailed analysis of the location and design and construction methods of levee

solutions will need to be undertaken to ensure that they are “fit for the purpose” and

can withstand the events they are expected to provide protection against. This should

be done in conjunction with flood modelling.

8. Appropriate funding will need to be allocated to whoever will be responsible for levees

to ensure that adequate maintenance of them is undertaken.

9. While levees may provide a form of protection they can also pose a risk. Their design,

construction and location, which should also incorporate local knowledge, requires

detailed review as does the ongoing maintenance requirements.

10. An independent detailed analysis of all matters that have arisen concerning channel

decommissioning should be undertaken before the project is progressed any further.

This analysis should address the impacts on drainage and flood control, as well as

ownership and responsibilities, liability for costs and compliance requirements.

Terms of Reference (c) - waterways management, including the nature and extent of vegetation clearing activities within waterways and their general maintenance

11. There is a need to review current legislative arrangements to ensure that there are

clear statements about roles and functions of authorities in relation to waterway

maintenance, including vegetation clearing activities.

12. In terms of vegetation clearing activities, any studies associated with flood modelling and

drainage needs to consider the observations and experiences in the recent floods of

those who monitored floodwater behaviour impacted by vegetation in waterways and

waterway maintenance.


4

4 | P a g e

Terms of Reference (d) - identifying those entities and individuals having ownership of waterways and the responsibility for their clearing and their maintenance

13. There needs to be further analysis and rationalisation of all aspects of water law and

waterways management. The current “layered” approach is too complex and does not

aid transparency or provide certainty, including to many of the agencies involved or with

a peripheral role in water management.

Terms of Reference (e) - the extent to which, if any, local knowledge of residents is employed in effecting waterways clearing and maintenance

14. Local knowledge is a valuable asset and due recognition should be paid to its value.

It should be one of a number of tools used in approaches to flood mitigation.


5

5 | P a g e

Buloke Profile

Buloke Shire is located in North West Victoria on the eastern edge of the Wimmera Plains and

southern Mallee, 300 km from Melbourne. It occupies an area of 8,001 square kilometres with

an estimated resident population of 7,078 - less than 1 person per square kilometre. There are

10 townships within the Shire: the larger towns are Birchip, Charlton, Donald, Sea Lake and

Wycheproof. The five smaller towns are Berriwillock, Culgoa, Nandaly, Nullawil and Watchem.

Agriculture, specifically grain production, is the primary source of income and employment in the

area. Other forms of farming, education, retail, community service sector and light industry also

provide employment and income.

In a Local Government context, Buloke is a small rural Shire facing significant ongoing financial

challenges.

There are two substantial water catchments within the Shire. The Avon-Richardson River

system on which Donald is situated and the Avoca River on which Charlton is situated.

The Avon-Richardson is internally drained with most surface water running into Lake Buloke.

In normal seasons, the Avoca River, fed from upstream of Avoca runs through Buloke Shire into

a series of terminal lakes and wetlands known as the Avoca Marshes, but in significant rain

events, will ultimately flow into the Murray River. 1 The Tyrell Creek runs from the Avoca River

and when flooded, can impact Wycheproof and Culgoa. Culgoa sits adjacent to the Tyrell

Creek, fed by waters from the Avoca River and is impacted by riverine flooding. In flood

conditions the Tyrell Creek inundates homes and rural properties on the eastern and western

sides of the Calder Highway as it passes through Culgoa.

Until September 2010, the Buloke community had experienced 12 years of drought and the

associated economic hardship which affects predominantly farming communities in such

conditions. As Buloke began the long process of recovery from that drought, starting with the

welcome rains and associated flooding in September 2010, it was confronted in January 2011

with the opposite of drought on the natural disaster front – severe and extensive floods not seen

in the area for upwards of 90 years. In some parts of the Shire the impact of the floods has

been estimated to have been a 1:200 year event.

The lead up to the January floods

The Shire experienced 3 major flood events between September 2010 and January 2011.

The first major flood on 6 September 2010 inundated parts of Charlton and caused damage to

both private and public assets and infrastructure. Businesses in High Street Charlton and

homes were inundated. Council assets and infrastructure such as roads and the newly

refurbished public swimming pool were severely affected. This flood was estimated to be equal

to or slightly higher than the levels experienced in the 1970’s.

1 http://www.nccma.vic.gov.au/About_Us/Our_Catchment/index.aspx


6

6 | P a g e

Although there was flood damage in Donald as a result of the September 2010 flood event, the

damage to public and private assets was minimised by sandbagging and other mitigation

activities.

The September flood also flowed through to Culgoa where sandbagging and community

mitigation activity similar to that undertaken in Donald prevented damage.

A number of rural properties in the Coonooer Bridge, Buckrabunyale, Charlton, Wooronook,

Teddy Waddy, Glenloth, Nullawil, Culgoa and Berriwillock areas were affected by flood waters.

No reports of stock loss were received. There was some damage of farm infrastructure (fences,

hay sheds, machinery sheds, shearing sheds, etc.)

The September flood was a record, but it was slow moving and allowed time for mitigation and

prevention works, such as sandbagging, to be undertaken. 2 It also allowed time for overall

planning and preparation, resources to be obtained, advice to be given and consultation to be

undertaken. It allowed for the limited evacuations thought necessary to be done in a timely

manner.

Despite some significant damage in Charlton, the heavy rains and the flooding throughout the

municipality in September were generally considered as “drought breaking”. There seemed to

be an optimistic mood in the community.

Further substantial rains caused flooding on 27 & 28 November 2010, but flood levels did not

reach those experienced in September. The community was well prepared and mitigation

activities such as sandbagging were undertaken efficiently and the results were effective. There

was minor damage to some private and public assets and infrastructure in Charlton but no

damage in other towns or to rural properties. The damage experienced was nowhere near the

extent of the damage done in comparison with the September event.

The January Flood – Summary

The flooding that happened in Buloke in mid January 2011 was an accumulation of events. It

was an ever unfolding and expanding crisis which response and recovery agencies, including

Council, were required to monitor and manage across most of the towns and communities that

make up the Shire. Even the small town of Nandaly, located in the far north of the Shire, which

was not affected by the flooding of the Avoca River and Tyrell Creek, was affected by the heavy

rainfall that preceded the floods and required allocation of resources to assist inundated

residents.

The flood waters progressed through the Shire over a period of 4 days. In some cases the

water moved predictably and in others, with a speed and intensity never witnessed before.

2 Council staff monitoring river levels on the Richardson River noted that it took 4 days for the flood waters to reach Donald which provided sufficient time for sandbagging and other preparation.


7

7 | P a g e

Even those with long term local knowledge were surprised by the volume and the speed of flood

waters that arrived in major towns like Charlton and Donald.3 Locals were also surprised, and

sometimes caught unawares, by the direction of some of the flood waters which flowed through

water courses that had seen no water for many decades.

In summary:

Localised flooding from storms occurred in Donald on Thursday night 13 January 2011.

Localised flooding occurred in and around Birchip on Friday 14 January 2011 morning

from storms.

Floodwaters started to rise in some streets in Charlton during the day of Friday 14

January 2011, but floodwater from the Avoca River hit with a vengeance late Friday

afternoon and the river continued to rise until it peaked early on the morning of Saturday

15 January 2011.

In Donald, the Richardson River continued to rise and peaked about 1.00am on

Saturday 15 January 2011.

By Sunday morning riverine flood waters were approaching Wycheproof and threatened

properties on the south side of the town and in the small town of Nullawil to the north.

Late on Sunday 16 January 2011 some water arrived in the northern part of Culgoa and

by Monday morning, 17 January 2011 all of Culgoa township was inundated.

Farms and small rural communities across the municipality were inundated as the water

moved east and north through the Shire.

Power was progressively lost to 85 % of the Shire and beyond when the Charlton sub station

was inundated on Friday night 14 January 2011 at approximately 10.30pm.

The power supply was progressively restored across the Shire from Sunday 16 January 2011

but in some parts of the municipality it took up to four days before supply was available. The

power failure caused communications failures and loss of mobile phone and internet services.

The power loss also affected food supplies, water supplies, fuel supplies and the management

and treatment of sewerage and effluent.

Road access, including major highways through the municipality and local unsealed roads were

impassable. At certain points in time, some towns in the Shire were completely isolated by the

flood waters requiring the delivery of food and other essentials by high clearance vehicles or

aircraft. Travel between some towns in the Shire was not possible for up to 5 days following the

flood event.

3 Long term residents and farmers upstream of Charlton have claimed that flows in the Avoca River from Avoca normally take 2

days to reach Charlton, but the volume of water in the river that reached Charlton late afternoon 15 January 2011 did so in about 8 hours.


8

8 | P a g e

Significant community infrastructure and buildings were inundated early in the emergency. At

Charlton this included the Council’s District Office and Works Depot, the Hospital, the Aged

Care facility, the Police Station, Ambulance Station, CFA Station, Waste Treatment Plant and

Water Treatment Plant. A number of the built facilities were also severely impacted by over flow

from the Waste Treatment Plant which saw raw sewerage flow across large areas of the town.

In Donald, the aged care facility (Goodwin Homes) was evacuated before being partially

inundated. Several house and businesses located in low lying areas of the Donald immediately

adjoining the Richardson River were inundated. Community facilities were also severely

impacted. The town’s swimming pool was completely inundated.

The January floods occurred while the Council and the community were still in recovery and

reinstating businesses, homes and infrastructure from the previous 2 flood events.

The municipality was already saturated before the predicted heavy rain and storms hit the

municipality on Thursday 13 January and the damaging January flood waters arrived.

The Avoca River was at established flood levels and heavy rainfalls in the surrounding

catchment meant that the massive volumes of water could simply not be absorbed.

The result of the combined events was the highest river levels in recorded history and

widespread riverine flooding.

Heavy rainfall in the Avon Richardson catchment and in and around Donald before 14 January

resulted in the highest river levels since 1909 and widespread riverine flooding. Flood peaks in

the Culgoa area were the highest in recorded history.

Community meetings were held in Charlton, Donald, Wycheproof and Culgoa prior to flood

waters arriving to discuss the pending disaster. Invitations to these meetings were sent out by

SMS to mobile telephones, through the local fixed line telephone system and via

announcements on local radio. Representatives of emergency response agencies, Council and

the relevant Catchment Management Authority were generally present at all of these meetings.

A community meeting was held in Charlton on Thursday 13 January 2011 organised by the SES

with participation from relevant emergency management agencies and the North Central

Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA). At that meeting information was provided about

predicted flood levels in the town.

Flood levels on 14 January 2011 in both Charlton and Donald quickly exceeded previous flood

levels and the predictions given simply meant that much of the experience gained from

September was of little value.

Local planning, based on previous experience and knowledge, was also of little value as the

water was ‘behaving’ in ways outside of the experience of even the oldest ‘flood hands’ in the

town.


9

9 | P a g e

Local knowledge was however crucial in making a number of decisions in both towns, and

Wycheproof and Culgoa, as the event unfolded, including the cutting of roads to divert water

away from town areas, the construction of makeshift levy banks and sandbagging of threatened

properties.

There can be no doubt that these actions in Charlton, Donald, Wycheproof and Culgoa, largely

undertaken by locals using whatever public and private resources and equipment were available

to them, made a significant difference and contributed to minimising damage to property,

particularly in Donald and Wycheproof.

It is also possible that the actions taken by the local community in each of the flood affected

communities assisted in achieving one of the few positives from the event, no serious injury or

loss of life.

The difficulty of “managing” the event from 14 January 2011 forward was exacerbated by the

power loss, resulting loss of communications and the inability to move between locations.

In Buloke, as in most rural communities, roads and access are as critical as power supply. At

one stage in the days immediately following the Charlton and Donald flood events, flood waters

and flood damage resulted in over 65 roads in the municipality being closed. At various stages,

road closures included sections of the Calder Highway, the Sunraysia Highway and the Borung

Highway. Many roads are still damaged and remain closed.


10

10 | P a g e

THE COMMITTEE’S TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of Reference (a) - identifying best practice and emerging technology for flood mitigation and monitoring infrastructure including river gauges

In preparing a response to the Committee, it became obvious that there is much room for

confusion, with a number of agencies currently having a role in flood preparedness and

prevention. These roles range from an overarching policy and management and control

function to the provision of works and infrastructure, flood modelling, forecasting and monitoring

weather conditions.

To a large degree, the potential for confusion about responsibility for the management of water

(which includes waterways, drainage, floodplains and catchments) comes from the legislation

that the agencies work with. This legislation includes:

• the Water Act 1989 which contains a complex “layered” approach to the management

and control of water. It broadly describes the functions of an Authority, which can be

either a water corporation or a catchment management authority, for each of the

components of water management (eg. water supply, irrigation water management etc.,)

without prescribing the specific Authority that the function is attached to. The

identification of the relevant Authority seems to come from either subsequent

declarations made by the Minister or from a statement of obligations issued by the

Minister to an Authority concerning waterway management functions. The Water Act

also contains powers that enable the Minister to exercise many functions associated with

management of water and to direct how an Authority must perform its functions and

exercise its powers;

• the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 which provides for the development of a

framework for the integrated and co-ordinated management of catchments and

prescribes functions around preparing strategies and providing advice to Government;

and

• the Local Government Act 1989, which contains remnant4 provisions relating to

management and control of sewers and drains and limited powers relating to drainage.

Use and development of land within designated flood overlays or works that could interfere with

water and drainage functions may require a permit under a planning scheme made pursuant to

the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Works for water supply and other purposes affecting roads may also require approvals from the

relevant road Authority under the Road Management Act 2005.

It is possible that the various parties with roles and functions under the legislation do not totally

comprehend this piecemeal approach.

4 Councils previously had wider powers relating to local water supply, drainage and sewerage functions. The Water Act 1989 rationalised and “devolved” most of those functions to regional water authorities, leaving Councils with limited roles, questions around “jurisdiction” and subject to the overall “control and management” and directive powers of water authorities.


11

11 | P a g e

While an Authority may have a level of understanding about the legislation they operate under, it

is possible that there is limited understanding of how the legislation interacts and the functions

that must be carried out.

This view is not intended to infer that lack of clarity was the reason for the magnitude of the

floods in September 2010 and January 2011. However, that lack of clarity may have

contributed to a lack of action in Buloke Shire around certain elements of flood “management”,

such as no contemporary flood modelling and mapping, limited protection works, no declared

flood levels or building lines, limited (if any) maintenance of waterways, levees and drainage

systems and capacity to forecast and monitor rain and storm impact.

It is the Council’s view that while a review of flood mitigation infrastructure is a critical step to

mitigate against future flood disasters, this should not be done without a comprehensive review

and rationalisation of roles, responsibilities and functions of Authorities currently designated with

a role in water “management”. To better and more effectively and efficiently apply limited

resources, it may also be timely to consolidate and confer all water functions under the

management and control of one entity.

Flood mitigation As discussed above, Buloke Shire along with most of Victoria had suffered a prolonged drought.

Despite the comparatively dry conditions that are characteristic of the region, there is also a

history of flooding.

It is possible that 12 years of drought distracted water and catchment management authorities

from any prioritisation of flood management strategies, or at least the need to review and update

existing flood management plans and strategies. The focus, including that of the Council, was

clearly on water conservation and drought survival.

Given that the scale of the flooding in Buloke Shire exceeded previous data and previous

memory of floods and the high probability of more frequent, more intense weather events5, there

is no other option than to review the adequacy of existing approaches to flood management and

mitigation.

The 2010/2011 floods have highlighted that each of the major towns in Buloke Shire has

different geographic features that require separate review and treatment. A "one size fits all"

approach will not deliver effective mitigation strategies for each of the towns.

Some funding has recently been made available to develop a flood management plan for

Charlton and for Donald.

Council believes flood management plans should also be developed for Culgoa and

Wycheproof.

5 http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate‐Change‐Vulnerable‐‐ci_pageNo‐3.html


12

12 | P a g e

Recent reviews of major floods suggests that flood mitigation is about an entire protection

system, not just levees and floodwalls. The matters raised in the Interim Report of the

Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry6 and in a review of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,7

suggest that while appropriate scientific research and flood modelling is essential, weather

prediction, planning and building standards, protection works such as levees and floodwalls and

warnings are all part of a risk mitigation approach.

In the case of Hurricane Katrina, an "entire protection system" has been developed so that

Government’s emergency services organisations, communities and individuals can make

informed decisions about the level of risk involved and the necessary action to take.

Lack of monitoring infrastructure and information Monitoring infrastructure for rivers and creeks in Buloke Shire is limited. There is no

consistency of approach to river height monitoring and access to information about the rivers

and the creeks in the Shire. The Avon-Richardson River and Tyrell Creek have no measuring

systems at all. In fact, the Avon-Richardson River does not appear in Bureau of Meteorology

(BOM) river height information or flood warnings on the BOM website.

In the absence of monitoring equipment (and no specific statutory role for local government),

Council staff undertook some visual monitoring of the levels of the Richardson River upstream

of Donald prior to both the September and January floods to try and gauge likely flood heights

and speed. Local farmers along the Richardson also provided information about river levels.

This monitoring was used as the basis for decisions made on 12 and 13 January 2011 to begin

preparations for a possible flood. This happened on an informal basis largely outside of

Emergency Management arrangements.

Since the September 2010 and January 2011 flood events some in the community have

suggested the historic practice of the appointment of ‘river wardens’ be revived as a means of

formalising this activity. Council does not see this as a responsibility of Local Government and

would be reluctant to support such an initiative without Government undertaking a thorough

examination of the statutory implications, and of the resources required to train, maintain and

support it. Council also believes that the installation of fully functional flood warning devices

with the capacity to provide a continuous stream of data are likely to be more effective in the

longer term.

The Avoca River system has four flood warning gauging stations, located at Archdale Junction,

Coonooer (Yawong Weir), Charlton (downstream) and Quambatook.

Residents upstream of Charlton were monitoring the levels of the Avoca River and some

questioned the reliability of the measuring device at the Yawong Weir which had been fixed

after it had failed in the September floods.

6 http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/publications/interim‐report

7 http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/investigations/pubs/NIST_TN_1476.pdf


13

13 | P a g e

Following the January 2011 event it was found that the Yawong Weir gauging station had failed

again, with the gauge stuck at 5.7 metres. The failure of the gauge on the Yawong Weir meant

that the ICC at Bendigo was not receiving correct information about river heights.

Improvements need to be made to river and creek monitoring. Increased numbers of

measuring devices and greater reliability of them is needed on the Avon-Richardson River and

Tyrell Creek, especially as information provided to the community and provided to the ICC

determines behaviour and provision of response and recovery resources. The installation of

flood warning devices on the Richardson is seen as a priority.

At the community meeting held in Charlton on 13 January 2011 information was provided about

predicted flood levels by both the State Emergency Service (SES) and the North Central

Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA). The extent of the flooding ended up being far

more than that predicted at the meeting.

While there is some appreciation with hindsight that the magnitude of natural disasters cannot

be accurately predicted, many Charlton residents felt that both the SES and the NCCMA could

have provided better information. This may in part, be attributable to the lack of flood modelling

for towns in Buloke Shire.

There is a clear need for contemporary modelling of various flood scenarios along the Avoca

River. NCCMA has data that shows that similar scale floods have occurred in the past, but the

possible increasing intensity of certain weather events, the changing nature of the landscape

through different farming methods, changing communities and built environments and greater

community expectations (especially since Black Saturday), now requires that more modelling

needs to be done to get a better understanding of how such events might impact on people in

the future.

Council understands that there are differences of opinion between CMA’s and the Bureau of

Meteorology (BOM) concerning responsibility for installing and maintaining flood warning (river

height) devices on rivers and creeks. Both have a view that it is the responsibility of the other to

install and maintain those devices. If that is the case, then steps need to be taken to resolve the

role of BOM and the CMA in the provision of flood data to agencies and the community.

In the preparation of its submission to the Comrie Inquiry, the Council heard that during the

January 2011 floods, radio flood warnings from BOM referred to the Avon-Richardson River in

the “Wimmera catchment” (without specific mention to towns or locations in the catchment).

This has no meaning to people who consider themselves living in the Mallee region of the State.

The role of BOM, in particular, for the provision of reliable data to agencies with a role in

emergency management and information to the community, warrants further attention.


14

14 | P a g e

The Interim Report of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry8 contains a number of

recommendations concerning the role of BOM in this regard, which could be considered by the

Committee, in particular, those relating to additional river height and rainfall gauges in areas of

identified need.

The Bureau of Meteorology needs to ensure that it has all relevant information, including

accurate and reliable river height data in the various weather districts across the State. BOM

should give further consideration to the definition of weather districts that it uses so that people

can readily identify whether their location in the district is at risk.

Planning and Building controls Under the Water Act 1989, the management of water resources in Buloke Shire is the

responsibility of Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water (GWM Water). The Water Act imposes

various functions and powers on the Minister, water authorities and catchment management

authorities. Authorities9 under the Water Act have floodplain management functions that

includes:

(a) to find out how far floodwaters are likely to extend and how high they are likely to rise;

(b) to declare flood levels and flood fringe areas;

(c) to declare building lines;

(d) to control developments that have occurred or that may be proposed for land adjoining

waterways;

(e) to develop and implement plans and to take any action necessary to minimise flooding and

flood damage;

(f) to provide advice about flooding and controls on development to local councils, the Secretary

to the Department and the community.

Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994, the management of catchments within the

Shire is predominantly with the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) for

the towns of Donald, Charlton, Birchip, Wycheproof, Watchem and Nullawil and the Mallee

Catchment Management Authority (MCMA) for the northern towns on Sea Lake, Culgoa,

Berriwillock and Nandaly.

Flooding is seen as more predictable than other natural hazards in terms of their location, depth

and extent. Or at least that was the view until January 2011. The use of planning through

appropriate controls in planning schemes is seen as an effective tool for mitigating risk to life,

property and the environment from flood.

The Buloke Shire Planning Scheme contains provisions concerning use and development of

land subject to inundation.

8 http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/publications/interim‐report

9 Defined in the Water Act to mean “a water authority or a Catchment Management Authority” or depending of which part of the Act a function or power is being exercised under, could be the Minister or a water authority or catchment management authority prescribed in a declaration in the Government Gazette.


15

15 | P a g e

These provisions have been in the Planning Scheme since 1995. They are in the form of

overlays (Land Subject to Inundation (LSIO) and Flood Overlays (FO)) and the Urban Floodway

Zone (UFZ) which applies to Charlton.

With the exception of an amendment made to the Planning Scheme in 2006, all flood related

amendments to the Planning Scheme have resulted from minor amendments made at the State

level.

Some amendments were made in 2006 to reflect that flooding is a significant issue for the Shire.

The amendments were based on information provided to the Council by (the then) DNRE

through the Flood Data Transfer Project and were designed to identify areas of greatest risk and

frequency of flooding. The boundaries to the LSIO were expanded and inundation maps

amended to reflect the expansion. The LSIO and FO maps applicable to Charlton, Donald and

Culgoa, the three towns most affected by floodwaters in January 2011 are attached and will be

referred to later in this submission.

Flood levels have not been designated or declared for the area by either the NCCMA or GWM

Water. It is understood that planning applications required to be referred to the NCCMA have

been assessed on the CMA’s best estimate of the 1% flood level above the relevant AHD.

There is no floodplain management plan for the Shire.

Following Black Saturday, planning and building requirements were reviewed and changed to

“fire proof” specific buildings from future fires having at least the same intensity. It is possible to

apply a similar approach for land subject to inundation. As with the Black Saturday planning and

building remedies, the difficulty lies in striking a balance between prescribing overly restrictive

approaches to planning and building standards that could add significant costs to a building and

the probability of a flood at the same levels and volumes of that experienced in January 2011.

There is also some difficulty in “retrofitting” building standards to existing buildings.

The attached map of Charlton shows the extent of the flood overlays under the Planning

Scheme, which is based on the probability of 1% AEP10. Even the unshaded area was

inundated during the January 2011 floods.

In hindsight it would be easy to conclude that Charlton should not be located on the Avoca

River.

Similar comments can be made about parts of Donald and Culgoa. That being said, existing

circumstances still need to be addressed and it is questionable how far a planning and building

solution can be reasonably applied to those existing circumstances.

10 AEP – Annual Exceedence Probability – is the likelihood of occurrence of a flood of given size or larger occurring in any one year.


16

16 | P a g e

From a building perspective, it would be a simple solution to require the floor level of houses,

commercial premises and other buildings to be constructed above a known flood level. The

issue is, what level?

The NCCMA have indicated that preliminary information obtained about Charlton shows

flooding at certain locations exceeded the estimated 1% flood level by 550mm. Until the flood

study for Charlton is completed, the NCCMA as a referral Authority under the Planning Scheme,

have advised that it will set the floor levels for new or replacement dwellings in Charlton a

minimum of 300mm above the estimated floor level, or a minimum of 150mm above the January

2011 flood level where available, and whichever is the highest.

This means that in some cases the floor level of the replacement or new dwelling could be as

much as 1000m above the natural surface level of the site. The potential costs associated with

this approach will be significant.

Planning and building solutions provide part of an approach to flood mitigation. It is possible

that while specific flood studies will be able to inform future planning and building standards and

where such standards should be applied, they need to be considered and balanced against

potential costs, risks and other mitigating options. Council remains concerned about how

planning and building requirements can be applied retrospectively to provide protection to

existing buildings and whether that is appropriate.

Terms of Reference (b) - the management of levees across Victoria including ownership, responsibility and maintenance on public and private land.

There are differing views in flood affected communities about ‘treatments’ to minimise the

impact of floods.

Some of the proposals put forward in community recovery committee meetings have suggested

that prevention works in the form of levee banks and the retention of decommissioned irrigation

channels should be examined.

Levees

During the 2010/11 floods, the levee on the Avoca River at Charlton did not provide protection

to the town. Flood water entered the town from a number of directions, including from the

Avoca River. While the levee had not been actively maintained, the height and the volume of

the water in the Avoca River would have far exceeded the height of the levee bank in any event.

Levees are, nevertheless, seen by some Charlton residents as part of necessary flood

protection for the town.

Levees were constructed by residents on the south western part of Wycheproof during the

January 2011 flood emergency and had mixed success. They provided a degree of protection

to some houses on the south west end of the town, but the levee was breached on the western

side of the town which resulted in flood water going underneath some houses. Fortunately no

significant damage was caused.


17

17 | P a g e

The use of levees is clearly a part of flood mitigation infrastructure that provides a degree of

protection from flood waters. They can divert flood water from properties and they can provide

critical time for people and emergency services to evacuate or to take further protection

measures.

However, they can also create a false sense of security. Levees can be a risk in themselves,

either because of failure or because the risk from a particular event exceeds their design

capacity.

Since Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has done a

detailed review under its Levee Safety Program of some 14,000 miles of the estimated 100,000

mile levee system in the United States, to assess the integrity and viability of levees and to

recommend actions to ensure that levees do not create an unacceptable risk to the public,

property and the environment11.

USACE do not promote levees as a fail safe remedy against flood. It is clear from their

published material that the value and effectiveness of levees is highly dependent on adequate

design and construction and a proper inspection and maintenance regime, including planting

appropriate vegetation, to ensure that the structural integrity of the construction is not

destabilised.

USACE caution that infrastructure alone, including levees, does not eliminate risk. Poorly

designed, constructed, operated or maintained levees and floodwalls can increase risk. Further,

all levees, regardless of their level of protection are at risk of overtopping, breach or failure

because a particular event may exceed their design capacity.

USACE also point out that levees originally designed for agricultural purposes may not

necessarily provide the protection required for larger communities.

As mentioned previously, there is a perception that flood waters can be managed or controlled

better than other natural disasters such as bushfire. Levees are seen as part of a "control" that

can be applied. The more controls that are implemented to manage floods, the more likely it is

that choices will have to be made about who and what gets sacrificed in the process.

While levees may alleviate or mitigate against a flood problem in one area, they may cause or

exacerbate a problem in another. The location of levees can mean that the "problem" simply

gets diverted somewhere else and it "becomes someone else's problem". They can hold flood

water in places where water might not normally be, causing consequential damage such as loss

of arable farm land. They may interfere with the natural course of flood waters resulting in areas

being flooded that have not been previously flooded. The use of levees as a panacea for flood

mitigation needs to be carefully examined before too much reliance is placed on them by

communities.

Detailed analysis of the location and design and construction methods of levee solutions will

need to be undertaken to ensure that they are “fit for the purpose” and can withstand the events

11 http://www.usace.army.mil/LeveeSafety/Pages/main.aspx


18

18 | P a g e

they are expected to provide protection against. This should be done in conjunction with flood

modelling.

Appropriate funding will need to be allocated to whoever will be responsible for levees to ensure

that adequate maintenance is undertaken.

Council is aware of various proposals that recognise the disadvantage that some may suffer as

a consequence of flood "management" by the use of levees and proposed forms of

compensation for loss.

This may include "buy back" of properties meeting certain criteria.

Future flood “management” may also mean that the liability provisions in the Water Act 198912

are used more extensively than they are currently are (or known to be).

As those provisions also apply to the Crown and other authorities with relevant functions, a

detailed review will need to be undertaken to assess the location of levees, their capability and

management, to ensure that their existence does not create the potential for significant

compensation claims.13

Council has also heard that more use needs to be made of local knowledge in building or

reinstating levees. Local knowledge is valuable, but Council remains uncertain how ‘local

knowledge’ can be effectively applied to this issue, particularly if there are competing views

about possible ‘solutions’. Whose view prevails, and who determines which view is correct?

Further, if the prevailing view is subsequently found to be defective and damage is suffered, are

those whose local knowledge applied likely to encounter litigation for making the ‘wrong call’.

While levees may provide a form of protection they can also pose a risk. Their design,

construction and location, which should also incorporate local knowledge, requires detailed

review as does the ongoing maintenance requirements.

De-commissioned channels Since the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline has become functional, GWM Water have instigated a

channel decommissioning process to eliminate open channels from the landscape. Some of

these channels have been in place for longer than 80 years.

The Council, and some members of the community, consider that the approach to

decommissioning the channels has not been properly analysed and executed. There are many

unanswered questions about:

• ownership and responsibility;

• the (unintended) impact on drainage because channels have been part of the landscape

and “water system” for so long;

12 Division 2 of Part 2 and section 157 of the Water Act 1989

13 Similar compensation schemes operate in the United States. The ability to claim for loss as a

consequence of the negligent actions or wrongful acts or omissions of an employee in the course of their

employment duties is enshrined in the Federal Torts Claims Act.


19

19 | P a g e

• whether decommissioning, including the need to remove or replace infrastructure such

as channel blocks, constitutes works and requires additional approvals from relevant

authorities, and if so, which authorities;

• the impact on the assets of other authorities, such as the impact of some

decommissioning works on Council roads and land; and

• the risks of leaving or removing channels.

If these questions have been addressed, then the Council is unaware of the answers and it

remains concerned that insufficient analysis and planning was undertaken prior to the

decommissioning process commencing.

Based on continuing discussions with community recovery committees and individuals in the

communities across the Shire since the floods, it is clear that there are differing views about the

impact of the decommissioning of former GWM Water irrigation channels on the floods.

Some see retention of the channels as an important part of future flood mitigation; others see

them as possible contributors to volumes of water moving independently of natural water

courses and therefore acting as a contributor to future flood scenarios. Still others see them as

a threat if retained by an adjoining land owner and used to drain flood waters away from

neighbouring paddocks.

Added to community questions about channel decommissioning is a question about what

appears to be an ad hoc approach to channel decommissioning. That is, one landowner may

elect to fill a channel in while another may not. It is unclear how this will sit with a region wide

approach to flood management.

GWM Water initially took a very strong policy position on the matter stating that “During a flood

event, GWM Water channels will only be operated to direct water into the nearest practical

drainage line or watercourse. Channels will not be utilised to attempt to provide local drainage

relief, as this may inadvertently create flooding issues elsewhere.” Further, “It remains GWM

Water’s position that all channels and associated structures be decommissioned unless there is

sound justification for their retention. Where channels are retained, ownership and

management will become the responsibility of another entity.” 14

That statement has since been followed up with a GWM Water Fact Sheet15 outlining the criteria

that will be applied to determining whether “sound justification” exists for retaining channels.

Included in the criteria is “local drainage or flood mitigation benefit”. The Fact Sheet also

indicates that as a result of consultation with landowners GWM Water now acknowledge that

specified channels in the system “are considered by the community to be important for

managing local drainage or flooding”.

This appears to be a shift from the previous position of GWM Water.

14 GWM Water “Flood Response”

15 http://www.gwmwater.org.au/information/publications/fact‐sheets/cat_view/78‐fact‐sheets/114‐farming


20

20 | P a g e

In addition to an apparent lack of analysis about the impacts on drainage and floodplains, there

seems to have been inadequate analysis of a number of legal considerations.


21

21 | P a g e

It is possible that certain compliance and process steps that should have been observed or

resolved before embarking on the decommission have not been resolved. The Council is

unaware that GWM Water has complied with the requirements of sections 139-140 of the Water

Act which requires that notice be given of a proposal to abandon major works and submissions

heard.

Added to the questions the community has about the value or otherwise of channels as part of

an approach to floodwater management, there is an apparent confusion about ownership of the

channels and the responsibilities of ownership.

On the one hand, GWM Water advise in their Fact Sheet16 that offences may be committed for

“unauthorised decommissioning of GWM Water assets in contravention of the Water Act”.

Further, “landowners who have channels on their land will be notified by GWM Water where

channel blocks are to be implemented under the Channel Isolation Policy”. These statements

suggest GWM ownership and control of channels and the infrastructure in them.

On the other hand, GWM Water are advising owners of land on which the channels are located

that they will be required to obtain a permit17 (from GWM Water with no apparent legislative

Authority) and GWM Water consent prior to decommissioning channels and structures.

Landowners have also been advised that they will be liable for costs if they opt to have the

easement in which the channel is located removed, despite the fact that those owners are not

the beneficiary of the rights in the easement. If the channels are “GWM water assets” and

GWM Water is the owner, it must bear the costs of its decisions and must take steps to comply

with any necessary approvals under other legislation.

An independent detailed analysis of all matters that have arisen concerning channel

decommissioning should be undertaken before the project is progressed any further. This

analysis should address the impacts on drainage and flood control, as well as ownership and

responsibilities, liability for costs and compliance requirements.

Terms of Reference (c) - waterways management, including the nature and extent of vegetation clearing activities within waterways and their general maintenance

Section 185 of the Water Act applies Part 10 of the Act – Waterway Management – to an

Authority that has a waterway management district and an Authority appointed by the Minister.

“Waterway management” is defined in the Water Act as meaning the “management of

waterways, drainage or floodplains.” The current approach in the Water Act does not provide a

clear identification of responsibility for waterways management. This could have contributed to

what some saw as inaction in terms of maintenance of waterways.

16 GWM Water Fact Sheet – Channel Decommissioning” – July 2011

17 GWM Water Fact Sheet ‐ “Channel Decommissioning” ‐ June 2010


22

22 | P a g e

The Council understands that clearing and maintenance of waterways is a function of CMA’s,

although (as mentioned above) that understanding is not based on a clear statement in the

Water Act or the functions, powers and duties of catchment management authorities in section

12 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. Section 12 appears to give CMA’s what

can broadly be described as a strategic, promotional and advisory role “and any other functions

conferred on the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act.”

“Any other functions conferred” may come about as a result of the Minister issuing a statement

of obligations to an Authority specifying obligations that an Authority has in relation to functions

as a waterway manager. In considering the statement of obligations applicable to the NCCMA,

it is still not clear what functions it has in respect of waterway clearance and maintenance. The

statement refers to the CMA as a “caretaker of river health” and of “developing and co-

ordinating the implementation of relevant action plans in accordance with guidelines issues by

the Secretary”. There is no express obligation concerning waterway vegetation clearing

activities.

The Local Government Act vests in Councils and gives them management and control powers

for public sewers and drains within the municipal district or those under roads in the municipal

district. The Act does not define what “public” sewers and drains are. The Local Government

Act also imposes limitations on the powers of Councils concerning the drainage of land,

including where a Council proposes to construct, manage or operate an “approved scheme”

under the Water Act.

Sewers and drains are defined as “works” for the purposes of the Water Act, so they are clearly

not “waterways” under that legislation. The definition of “waterway” in the Water Act includes

many features, some natural and some artificial, that may constitute a waterway for the

purposes of management and control under that Act. Council has always acted on the basis

that its roles and functions do not extend to the maintenance and clearing of vegetation from

waterways, that being the role of catchment management authorities.

Council has also acted on the basis of the apparent overriding powers of authorities under the

Water Act, as the exercise of Council’s limited powers with respect to sewers and drains can be

subject to compliance with requirements in the Water Act.

There are differing views in the community about the benefits or otherwise of clearing vegetation

within waterways. Immediately after the floods, particularly the January 2011 floods, there was

much local discussion about responsibility for the maintenance of rivers and creeks and the

removal of rubbish (dead trees etc.) from them. Some in the community promoted the view that

the lack of river and creek maintenance exacerbated the flooding problem. Others had a view

that maintenance of vegetation and habitats in waterways is critical to the health of the

waterways and the environment generally and should therefore not be disturbed. Others

suggested to the Council that nothing had been done at all about clearing and maintenance of

waterways and questioned responsibility for such functions.


23

23 | P a g e

There is a need to review current legislative arrangements to ensure that there are clear

statements about roles and functions of authorities in relation to waterway maintenance,

including vegetation clearing activities.

In terms of vegetation clearing activities, any studies associated with flood modelling and

drainage needs to consider the observations and experiences in the recent floods of those who

monitored floodwater behaviour impacted by vegetation in waterways and waterway

maintenance.

Terms of Reference (d) - identifying those entities and individuals having ownership of waterways and the responsibility for their clearing and their maintenance

In reviewing the Water Act and Catchment and Land Protection Act to assist with this

submission, the complex arrangements devolving responsibilities and functions to various

agencies along with the administrative arrangements of Government, results in many different

bodies with roles and functions associated with waterways. Some of those roles and functions

are not based in legislation, but rather, come from administrative arrangements and policy

decisions from “parent” Departments such as the roles played by the Department of

Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries.

It is difficult to identify exactly who is the “owner” of waterways. Rather than ownership of

waterways the legislative concept seems to be one of management and control exercised by an

“Authority”. It is also difficult to ascertain from the Water Act exactly who is the “Authority” for

the purposes of carrying out the functions under the Act. An Authority can be a water

corporation or a catchment management Authority. The Water Act only refers to an “Authority”

without making it clear which Authority is exercising powers and functions and which has

responsibility or a statutory duty to undertake functions. The clearer delineation appears to

come from a Ministerial statement of obligations for an Authority, the linking/designation of a

district or region to an Authority or from specific declarations concerning the exercise of

functions under the Act.

While the administrative ease of such an approach is understood, and while both the statement

of obligations and declarations made are required to be published in the Government Gazette,

there is still no easy way to identify the “the Authority” or the scope of their powers and

functions.

The exercise of functions and powers may be dependent on the declaration by an Authority of

further matters such as the declaration of designated waterways. This approach seems to have

reduced clarity of the arrangements concerning ownership, management and control and

responsibility for functions. The lack of clarity about “ownership” or control of waterways and

responsibilities associated with that status, seems to be a view shared by many as it was raised

with the Council during the preparation of the Council’s submission to the Comrie Inquiry.


24

24 | P a g e

There needs to be further analysis and rationalisation of all aspects of water law and waterways

management. The current “layered” approach is too complex and does not aid transparency or

provide certainty, including to many of the agencies involved or with a peripheral role in water

management.

Terms of Reference (e) - the extent to which, if any, local knowledge of residents is employed in effecting waterways clearing and maintenance

Council is unsure of the extent to which GWM Water or the catchment management authorities

for the Shire incorporate local knowledge in their activities. Both the Water Act and the

Catchment and Land Protection Act have statutory obligations about public consultation in

relation to certain functions and activities. Statements of obligations promote community

consultation in a range of activities.

Local knowledge is a valuable asset and due recognition should be paid to its value. It should

be one of a number of tools used in approaches to flood mitigation.


25

25 | P a g e

Attachment


26

26 | P a g e

submission to the inquiry into flood … · submission to the inquiry into flood mitigation...

Documents