Web viewThere is still much investment in low priority waterways e.g. stormwater and sewage. ... If...

SEPP (Waters) ReviewClauses 24, 26, 35

EPA / DELWP

Workshop Summary, December 2016

Privacy

Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting privacy and personally identifiable information by meeting our responsibilities under the Victorian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles 2014 as well as relevant industry codes of ethics and conduct.

For the purpose of program delivery, and on behalf of our clients, we collect personal information from individuals, such as e-mail addresses, contact details, demographic data and program feedback to enable us to facilitate participation in consultation activities. We follow a strict procedure for the collection, use, disclosure, storage and destruction of personal information. Any information we collect is stored securely on our server for the duration of the program and only disclosed to our client or the program team. Written notes from consultation activities are manually transferred to our server and disposed of securely.

Comments recorded during any consultation activities are faithfully transcribed however not attributed to individuals. Diligence is taken to ensure that any comments or sensitive information does not become personally identifiable in our reporting, or at any stage of the program.

Capire operates an in-office server with security measures that include, but are not limited to, password protected access, restrictions to sensitive data and the encrypted transfer of data.

For more information about the way we collect information, how we use, store and disclose information as well as our complaints procedure, please see www.capire.com.au or telephone (03) 9285 9000.

Consultation

Unless otherwise stated, all feedback documented by Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is written and/or recorded during our program/consultation activities.

Capire staff and associates take great care while transcribing participant feedback but unfortunately cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that we capture the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during our consultation activities.

Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in our work represent those of the participants and not necessarily those of our consultants or our clients.

© Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

This document belongs to and will remain the property of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

Authorisation can be obtained via email to [email protected] or in writing to: Capire Consulting Group 96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.

Introduction

Workshop details

Workshop purpose

Workshop outline

Summary of discussions

Clause 24: Regional Target Setting

Discussion #1: Other issues

Discussion #2: Key considerations

Clause 26: Offset Measures



Clause 35: Sewerage Management



SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Introduction

Workshop details

Date: Monday 30 November 2016

Time: 10am to 5pm

Location: EPA Victoria; 200 Victoria Street, Carlton

Organiser: DELWP/EPA

Facilitator: Capire Consulting Group

Attendees: 28

Workshop purpose

The aim of this workshop was to discuss three SEPP (Waters) clauses to be revised. The clauses discussed at this workshop were:



Clause 35: Sewerage Management.

The objectives of the workshop were to:

develop a shared understanding of how the proposed changes have been identified and developed

present an interim position on the new directions for each clause

seek input from stakeholders on the issues and opportunities around the implementation of each clause.

The purpose of these notes is to provide a summary of discussions during the workshop.

1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Workshop outline

ITEM PROCESS

Welcome Open, introductions, housekeeping and agenda

Context DELWP presented the context for the SEPP (Waters) review and review of Clauses 24, 26 and 35


What we have heard so far Clause 24

Presentation of engagement findings to date in relation to Clause 24

Discussion #1 Discussion to check that all issues relating to Clause 24 have been captured

Revision of Clause 24 DELWP presented considerations for the revision of Clause 24 including policy principles and policy intent of the clause

Discussion #2 Discussion of what should be considered in revising Clause 24













Closing A plenary discussion followed by evaluation of the workshop, next steps and closing statements

2


Summary of discussions



During this session, participants were asked whether or not all the issues relating to Clause 24 had been captured. Discussion focused on additional issues or suggestions that need to be considered during the refinement of the clause. Participant responses have been summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Participant responses from Discussion #1

Theme Key points

Beneficial uses - There is a large focus on economic benefits rather than public health benefits.

- Community consultation should be undertaken to ensure that community values are considered when determining beneficial use.

- The SEPP should capture the intent of tiered objectives and Environmental Quality Improvement Programs (EQIPs) as they relate to beneficial uses.

Target setting - CMA’s should co-ordinate the setting of targets by third parties.

- There needs to be a clear framework for establishing targets to ensure consistency and transparency.

- Targets need to be real and tangible, with both short-term and aspirational goals

- Minimum data requirements are needed to guide target setting.

- Clarity is needed around the scale of targets.

Flexibility - SEPP must be able to adapt to changes in information about current conditions.

- The DEWLP Integrated Water Management Strategy (IWMS) suggests the need for flexibility outside of the SEPP targets.

Sharing knowledge

- CMA knowledge about water quality should be shared with other organisations.

- The sharing of knowledge between water corporations should be

3 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Theme Key points

encouraged and facilitated.

Objectives - Objectives should be set as a range not as a specific number.

- Non-priority areas are not captured by the clause. Baseline objectives for non-priority waterways should be set for the state as a whole.

- Tiered objectives do not measure net benefits.

- The relationship between water quality objectives and water strategy priorities should be made clearer.

- Regional scale objectives should be related to flow in order to improve Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM).

Regulation - Clause 24 should be related to other clauses e.g. Clause 24 can provide guidance for the low priority areas described in Clause 35.

- Clause 24 should link with the Regional Waterway Strategy (RWS).

Implementation - Clause 24 is currently aspirational rather than implementable.

- There is no organisation responsible for protecting beneficial uses from non-compliance.

- An enforceable document is needed to ensure implementation.

Responsibility - Greater clarity on roles and responsibilities is needed e.g. the role of water corporations needs to be outlined.

- More governmental links are required.

Resourcing - It is often difficult for CMA’s to set targets because of funding and resourcing limitations.

- There is a lack of capacity in a number of organisations to deliver on targets.

Reporting - Monitoring is a key aspect of the clause and its importance needs to be recognised and valued.

- Data collection for reporting needs to be guided by official processes and procedures.

Risk - A key part of meeting objectives is to identify the risks to objectives.

- The steps needed to obtain ‘significant risk’ status needs to be made clearer.

- A risk assessment template should be provided.

Discharge - Discharge licences will impact the ability of water corporations to meet targets.

4



During this session, participants discussed key considerations that should be taken into account when revising Clause 24. Participant responses have been summarised in Table 2 below.


Theme Key points

Community input - Community value should inform how EQIP needs are identified.

- The Essential Services Commission (ESC) focuses on customer/community opinions, these should also be considered in Clause 24.

- The license amendment processes must include a public forum.

- The general public is more likely to be aware of issues if there is a centralised place for data collection.

Links between clauses

- There are opportunities for Clause 24 to link with Clause 26 and provide possible outcomes for offset measures.

- Links between Clause 24 and other policies should be established. e.g. linkages to the Water Quality Management Framework (WQMF).

Collaboration - There needs to be more sharing of information, collaborating and working together e.g. better relationships between CMA’s and water authorities should be established.

Prevention - The current focus of Clause 24 is retrospective. The clause should also consider ways to prevent poor water quality, particularly where development is planned.

Priority levels - It is unlikely that EQIP’s can be implemented everywhere, there needs to be clear methods for prioritisation and ways to manage tensions when setting priorities.

- More clarity is needed on how Clause 24 will inform actions in low priority urban areas.

- There is still much investment in low priority waterways e.g. stormwater and sewage.

Discharge - Clause 24 should inform license conditions and be reflective of the target setting process. Both timing and the water quality of receiving environments should be considered e.g. drinking water catchments may be at risk from diffuse sources such as dairy.

5 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Theme Key points

Beneficial use - The clause should provide for interim beneficial uses to guide situations where beneficiaries are not being achieved in a waterway.

Growth areas - The current draft of Clause 24 does not adequately cover application in growth areas.

- The implications of developers creating and monitoring targets in growth areas needs to be considered. CMA’s could monitor and act as referral agencies.

Objectives - Consultants need a document that shows them what to do when objectives are not being met.

- It is unclear whether one area can have two sets of objectives.

Regulation - Clause 24 should be considered in planning provisions.

Environmental objectives

- Clause 24 needs to address the tension between compliance and what is best for the environment. Currently most water corporations aim for compliance.

Data - The National Trust could share its data on fish studies to add to the research base that is used to create targets.

Targets - A workable target setting framework is required.

- There should be no commercial interests involved with setting targets.

- Third party organisations such as GHD could contribute to setting targets, especially in low priority areas.

6




During this session, participants were asked whether or not all the issues relating to Clause 26 had been captured. Discussion focused on additional issues or suggestions that need to be considered during the refinement of the clause. Participant responses are summarised in Table 3 below:


Theme Key points

Case studies - The case study of Golden Valley shows the potential of the clause; everyone needs to work together to make the clause successful.

- Once the concept of offsets is proven by smaller projects, people will be more open to using it.

Implementation - More implementation information is needed e.g. time frames, offset timelines, boundaries.

Roles - Water corporations are the most co-ordinated to be able to lead the offset process.

Links to other clauses

- Clause 26 should link with other clauses. As a standalone clause it will be harder to implement.

Flexibility - Water corporations want more flexibility with how to use offsets.

- Current considerations of the clause focus on narrow definitions of how offsets can be used. This focus should be broadened.

- Offsets should not just focus on reducing mixing zones, but on the overall catchment.

Timelines - Offsets are based on 5-10 year periods, whereas infrastructure is long term.

- Kilmore is a project of interest that could potentially provide a way to reconcile these difference in timelines.

Financial sense - There is agreement that offsets make financial sense. When money is directed to the right areas riparian zones benefit.

Carbon neutrality - Carbon neutrality should take precedence over water impacts.

Treatment capacity

- As growth continues, treatment plants cannot keep treating more and more water. Limited capacity suggests that water will have to be

7 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Theme Key points

discharged into environments with offsets made in other places. It is important that this process has clear direction from regulators.

Mixing zones - There should be a focus on water quality rather than the number of mixing zones.

- Clear processes for monitoring and regulating mixing zones are needed.

Quantification - More direction is needed on how to quantify offsets e.g. this could make comparing a reduction of carbon to increases in waterway quality easier.

- More data is needed to be able to quantify benefits.

- It is challenging to describe different sources of pollutants effectively.

- Offsets should look beyond current water KPIs.

Tiered objectives - It will be important to link Clause 26 with tiered objectives and regional target setting.

- Offsets could tie in with health based target assessment processes completed by water corporations.


During this session, participants discussed key considerations that should be taken into account when revising Clause 26. Participant responses are summarised in Table 4 below.


Theme Key points

Catchment approach

- Licences should not be looked at separately but as a catchment whole.

- A single organisation should be responsible for ongoing monitoring of offsets within a catchment.

- There needs to be a holistic consideration of how threats to water quality are addressed.

Offset benefits - It is difficult to measure the benefit of one offset over another.

- Offsets cannot be like for like; they need to be prioritised.

- The timeframes of benefits change and are difficult to measure.

8


Theme Key points

- Each offset should have a dual benefit where possible.

- Carbon neutrality should sit at the top of the list of offset benefits.

Application - Clause 26 should apply to more than just licensed premises.

Mixing-zones - More clarity is required in the reasons for reducing mixing-zones.

- The reduction of zones should be described as a desirable goal rather than as an obligatory requirement of an offset arrangement.

- The focus on reducing mixing-zones is stopping people from exploring other options for offsets.

Other clauses - There are many opportunities for Clause 26 to link with other clauses.

- Clause 26 could possibly be an overarching clause to which a number of other clauses apply.

Essential Services Commission (ESC)

- Negotiating offsets with the ESC may be important, as some offsets will run for longer than five years.

- The ESC needs to have input into how offsets will carry over multiple pricing plans.

Environmental outcomes

- Environmental outcomes need to be thought about more broadly.

- Environmental flows should be considered more closely.

Framework - A clearer framework for offsets needs to be developed. A framework can be used to broaden the definition of offsets, and to create more innovative outcomes e.g. native vegetation could be used as an offset.

Quantification - Ways to measure the success of offsets needs to be developed.

Flexibility - A higher level of trust needs to be given to water corporations so that more innovative and beneficial outcomes are developed.

- There is general concern that the clause is constraining.

- If offsets were sitting outside the regulatory tools they may be more flexible and more useful.

- There are good examples of creating multiple benefits with offset measures in the non-regulatory space e.g. carbon mitigation measures.

Research - Water for Victoria is committed to beginning research into offsets. This project was sparked by submissions from water corporations and will start soon.

9 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Theme Key points

- There is not currently sufficient science available to quantify offset outcomes to a high level of certainty.

- It will be very important to evaluate the outcomes of case studies.

Timelines - The time component of offsets needs to be explored further e.g. timelines of when improvement from offsets become the new current condition.

Risks - More clarity is needed about how to measure and eliminate risk.

- Nothing within the offset approach will drive further action to address other sources or risks that are leading to poor quality.



During this session, participants were asked whether or not all the issues relating to Clause 35 had been captured. Discussion focused on additional issues or suggestions that need to be considered during the refinement of the clause. Participant responses are summarised in Table 5 below.


Theme Key points

Community - It is important to provide more education to the general public about the operation of sewerage networks so that they can better understand the sewer service charge.

- The intersect between regulatory standards and community values needs to be improved.

- If a 1:5 design cannot be achieved community engagement should be undertaken.

Flexibility - Planning arrangements should be flexible to respond to different issues and stakeholders.

Prioritisation - Tools and frameworks are needed to guide the prioritisation of actions.

Regulation - Clause 35 needs to work within existing regulatory frameworks and

10


Theme Key points

should connect to other clauses and policy e.g. Clause 35 should link in with Clause 24 to enable a risk assessment and a holistic improvement plan.

- Regulations and rules are needed to justify expense of sewer upgrades

1:5 - The 1:5 approach has been an important method of triggering investment in some places and should not be taken out of Clause 35.

- The 1:5 approach has many benefits but policy needs to ensure it is equitable for all water corporations.

- Clarity on how the 1:5 can be released based on diminishing environmental benefits is needed.

- The Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) approach is far more stringent than the 1:5.

- More clarification is needed on what qualifies as a 1 in 5 event to enable justification of spills from wet weather.

- Climate change means that 1 in 5-year rainfall will be different in the future e.g. there has been more flash flooding in last 5 years.

- Minimum design standards for 1:5 are required.

Tools - There should be more guidance on how sewerage is managed in infill and urban growth areas. There are many opportunities to work towards smarter management in these areas.

- A useful and robust design standard is needed.

- A high level sewerage management plan that includes all 25 catchments is needed.

Waters of Victoria (WOV)

- The benefits of WOV need to be acknowledged. Benefits include containment of dry weather flows and 1:5 wet weather events.

Stormwater - Rigour should be applied to stormwater clauses, particularly in inner urban areas as it is in these areas where most sewer overflows occur.

Upgrades - Currently Clause 35 does not enable impact to waterways to be considered in determining if an upgrade is required.

- Better planning mechanisms are needed to implement upgrades effectively and to ensure downstream processes are not affected.

Holistic approach - The sewerage system needs to be approached holistically rather than with the ad-hoc approach currently used.

11 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Theme Key points

- Consistency is needed, everyone is doing things differently.

Illegal connections

- The clause focuses on overflows, but should also consider illegal connections.

Enforcement - Organisations must be forced to report against plans, otherwise the plans will be meaningless.

Essential Services Commission (ESC)

- The sewer management plan could be used to justify sewer investment decisions during each regulatory pricing period.

- Sewer management should be aligned with the ESC pricing submission e.g. justification of five-year sewer spends.

- The ESC may be poorly suited to make decisions about risk based prioritisation.

Prevention - Clause 35 should be more aligned with the EPA’s preventative approach. There is more value in preventative measures than reporting after the fact.

Resources - Significant investment is needed to meet standards.

Reporting - There is a need to set specific requirements for data so that it cannot be tweaked to look like the 1:5 when it is not.

- Reporting should be standardised across all water authorities.

- Water corporations use local rainfall data because the Bureau of Meteorology data is not always accurate for regional locations.

- There needs to be more frequent assessments of sewer performance and quality of receiving environments.

Risk - Clause 35 is about managing risk, there is an opportunity for SEPP to strengthen how risk is assessed in the clause.

- Overflow in a pristine environment has a greater risk than in an already degraded environment irrelevant of cost. Therefore, risk should not be based on dollars spent.

- Clause 35 prioritisation is based on frequency and volume rather than on risk to the receiving environment.

- The risk based approach is supported but not if it allows perverse outcomes.

Targets - There is an obligation on water authorities to maintain a standard. Targets and benchmarks are a driving force that provide something to work towards.

- Informal targets are not enough to prioritise funding for economic

12


Theme Key points

regulators.


During this session, participants discussed key considerations that should be taken into account when revising Clause 35. Participant responses are summarised in Table 6 below.


Theme Key points

Community - The general public is unaware of what they are paying for in regards to sewerage.

- Reporting systems could be used to build community understanding of the sewerage network.

- Much can be learnt from Sydney Water about educating communities on waterways. They use a whole systems approach to determine what was is valuable, amenity, aquatic life, environment, etc.

Process - There is currently a lack of clarity in the clause. There are no processes for compliance or enforceability. A consistent framework is needed to rectify this situation.

Design standards - Current design standards do not have impact.

- There should be differentiation in design standards between existing systems and systems in newly developed areas.

Integration - Big picture and integration are key to the success of this clause.

- Clause 35 should relate to Clause 24.

Flexibility - Sewerage management is moving forward in this SEPP. It provides more flexibility which is valuable.

Responsibility - The EPA is the most appropriate body to overview implementation of the clause. It could have an auditable function to make sure that water corporations are complying and reporting.

1:5 - The 1:5 makes it easier for planning but it isn’t necessarily the right approach.

- There needs to be a clear explanation of where the 1:5 came from.

- Currently we only look at 1:5 for each system rather than looking

13 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


holistically at the whole system.

- Implementation of 1:5 needs to be monitored more closely to ensure it is an effective approach.

Reporting - Reportage needs to be adaptive and ongoing and should occur once every 5 years with the pricing submission.

Risk - Sewerage should not be a driver for a risk assessment. Risks should drive interventions.

- A risk framework that considers whether or not something is an issue is needed.

- More clarity is needed on what drives risk assessment e.g. for circumstances where Clause 35 is not the main risk to beneficial use.

14

Web viewThere is still much investment in low priority waterways e.g. stormwater and sewage. ... If...

Documents

Transcript of Web viewThere is still much investment in low priority waterways e.g. stormwater and sewage. ... If...