Download - Sydney Catchments Neutral Or Beneficial Effects Planning Instrument Assessment

Alexandra & Associates Pty Ltd16 Homestead Road, Eltham, Vic 3095ph/fax 03 9431 3426mobile: 0407 943 916email: [email protected] ABN 80 076 322 364

Alexandra & Associates – 16 Homestead Rd Eltham 3095 [email protected]

SYDNEY CATCHMENTS PROJECT

NEUTRAL OR BENEFICIAL EFFECT ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

For NSW Peak Environment NGO’sC/O Jeff Angel, Director

Total Environment CentreLevel 2, 362 Kent St, Sydney 2000

JASON ALEXANDRAALEXANDRA & ASSOCIATES

CONTACT:

Project DirectorJason Alexandra

Alexandra & Associates

Sydney Catchments Neutral Or Beneficial Effects Assessment – October 03

Alexandra & Associates – 16 Homestead Rd Eltham 3095 [email protected] Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................1

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................4

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................6

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................6

2 SUMMARY OF NORB GUIDELINES.................................................................................................7

2.1 SUMMARY OF NORB AND KEY RELATIONSHIPS...................................................................................7

2.2 BACKGROUND TO THE NORB GUIDELINES........................................................................................ 11

2.3 SUMMARY OF THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS UNDERPINNING THE NORB GUIDELINES ........................... 12

3 CRITIQUE OF THE PROPOSED NEUTRAL OR BENEFICIAL EFFECTS GUIDLEINES......... 14

3.1 PROPOSALS REQUIRING APPROVAL................................................................................................... 14

3.2 DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ................................................................................ 15

3.3 DETERMINATION OF A NORB EFFECT ............................................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Offsets.................................................................................................................................... 15

3.3.2 The Tests................................................................................................................................ 16

3.4 SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY ................................................................................................................... 19

3.5 EASE OF USE................................................................................................................................... 20

3.6 LEGAL DEFENCE ............................................................................................................................. 21

3.7 COVERAGE OF TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 21

3.8 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 21

4 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES .................................................................................................................... 23

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 RELEVANT LITERATURE .................................................................................................................. 23

4.3 POLLUTION ..................................................................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................................... 25

4.3.2 Disturbance of flow regimes ................................................................................................... 25

4.3.3 Damage to natural infrastructure ........................................................................................... 25

4.3.4 Pollution ................................................................................................................................ 26

5 INVESTIGATION OF COMPARABLE SCHEMES ......................................................................... 28

5.1 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 ACCEPTED INTERNATIONAL CONCEPTS ............................................................................................ 29

5.2.1 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach (ref: GWP, 2002)...................... 29

5.2.2 Peak bodies - Characteristics ................................................................................................. 30

5.2.3 Regulatory Instruments .......................................................................................................... 30

5.3 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS....................................................................................................... 31

5.3.1 United States.......................................................................................................................... 31



5.3.2 New Zealand .......................................................................................................................... 33

5.3.3 Sao Paolo, Brazil ................................................................................................................... 34

5.4 AUSTRALIAN COMPARISONS............................................................................................................ 35

5.4.1 Victoria.................................................................................................................................. 35

5.4.2 South Australia ...................................................................................................................... 37

5.4.3 Tasmania ............................................................................................................................... 38

5.4.4 Western Australia................................................................................................................... 40

5.5 CONCLUSION RE COMPARISONS ....................................................................................................... 42

6 DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES, NRM AND WATER QUALITY OUTCOMES ............................ 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 45

ATTACHMENT 1 - AUSTRALIAN MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING STRUCTURES ..................... 51



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the project is to investigate and assess the Neutral or Beneficial (NorB)Effect Assessment Guidelines (PlanningNSW 2002a) on behalf of the PENGOs (PeakEnvironment Non-Government Organisations). The Guidelines are a planning instrument tosupport the Regional Environmental Plan (REP) under development by PlanningNSW forSydney's drinking water catchments.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management (SWCM) Act (1998) requires that a RegionalEnvironmental Plan (REP) be prepared for Sydney’s drinking water catchments. The Actalso requires: "consent authorities to refuse to grant development consent to a developmentapplication relating to land to which the plan applies unless the consent authority is satisfiedthat the carrying out of the proposed development would have a neutral or beneficial effecton the quality of water" (SWCM Act, s.53(3)(c)).

The NorB guidelines are an attempt to ensure that this intention of the Act is upheld andapplied. According to the NorB guidelines approval for a proposed development will only begranted if it is deemed to have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality.

As Sydney has some mixed use catchments – those not dedicated entirely to production ofhigh quality water – effective water quality protection and enhancement programs arerequired. Land use controls are a primary control mechanism used to restrict or permit landbased activities for wide range of reasons. In this case the controls – granting or refusing apermit – are to be based on predicted impacts on the quality of water flowing into Sydney’swater storages. Therefore, the quality of the both the predictive capacity and thedevelopment and land use controls will be fundamental in determining the future catchmentconditions and the resultant water quality.

Key issues: Ensuring the best available information is used to support thepredictive assessments will be critical.

The NorB guidelines apply only to those developments that require government approval.The cumulative impacts of continuing existing landuse, or activities or landuses that do notrequire approval are therefore not addressed. It is likely that some of these will continue tohave negative impacts on water quality resulting in a decline in quality in certain streamsfrom which the neutral assessments will be made. These exemptions could be seen as afailing of the guidelines to adequately protect water quality from some kinds of developmentpressures.

Key issues: the nature of those activities exempted from the planning processneeds to be reviewed based on their potential water quality impacts.

The NorB guidelines aim to provide a framework for determining if a proposed developmentwill have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality. They state that both on and off-siteeffects of the development should be taken into consideration and that the entire life-cycle



of the development must be considered, including its construction, operation anddecommissioning. The NorB effect concept is underpinned by the assumption that theeffects of proposed developments can be predicted with sufficient accuracy to determine allfuture water quality impacts. This goes against the understanding that catchments areinterlinked and complex systems and that various impacts and risk are likely to accrue fromchanges in the activities within and around the development rather than the developmentitself. For example, various risks could result from transport of goods to and from adevelopment.

Key issues: applying a consistent approach to life cycle assessment method isrequired.

Determination of what constitutes a neutral or beneficial effect can vary depending on awide variety of factors. These include the current condition of the waterway, accuracy andcomprehensiveness of background information, knowledge of water management of theperson making the assessment and clarity of the information provided to the assessor. Inaddition to this the knowledge of catchment and aquatic systems in Australia is dynamic andat best capable of providing interim solutions (Cullen 1998).

Key issues: the capacity and understanding of the assessors will be critical to theeffective application of the NoB guidelines.

The Act maintains clearly that a development should not proceed unless it has a neutral orbeneficial impact on water quality. This is the underlying principle or purpose of theguidelines. If the guidelines are effective, the people of NSW should have confidence that ifa proposed development is to have a negative impact on water quality it will not beapproved.

Key issues: the people of Sydney and the wider community of NSW need to haveconfidence in the effectiveness of the guidelines

While the principle behind the guidelines is clear, the clarity is reduced by including withinthe definition of a development the notion of “offsets”. The certainty about the integrity ofthe guidelines is undermined by the introduction of the "green offset" scheme. In effect, aproposal with negative water quality impacts can be approved if its proponents balance theimpacts by restorative works off the development site (off-site) via other activities which areintended to improve water quality for example by way of revegetation. The offset schemeassumes a virtually unlimited requirement for positive works that can’t be funded in otherways; however, a genuine commitment to the protection of water quality would ensure thatrevegetation works are carried out in areas where it is needed independently of whatdevelopments are proposed.

Key issues: the offsets proposal provides an out for developments which don’tsatisfy the intent of only permitting developments with neutral or beneficialeffects and are likely to be the most contentious aspect of the guidelines andtheir application. Alternatives to offsets should be investigated.



The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act is unambiguous in its intention but the NorBGuidelines are unlikely to be sufficient to deliver on this intention of the Act, and seem tofocus more on providing technical details rather than identifying a clearly defined and easilyapplied development approvals process.

Furthermore, an underlying weakness is that the NorB guidelines use the existing waterquality as the benchmark rather than a desired water quality or water quality target. Assuch, a development only needs to not have an adverse impact on the existing backgroundlevels rather than a desired standard. Over time it would be possible that due to manycomplex trends, developments would need to meet lower and lower water quality standards,while the impacts would contribute to a declining background level.

Key issues: the guidelines are conceptually flawed if developments need only tomeet standards based on current background levels rather than desired levelsbecause doing so will reinforce that status quo rather than the desired waterquality.



DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. If they do not already the catchments should be covered by uniform planningconditions to ensure a consistent approvals process in all areas of the catchments sothere is confidence that the guidelines are being applied uniformly.

2. The capacity of local authorities to implement the guidelines should be assessed and ifnecessary deficiencies should be overcome with suitable training etc.

3. The primacy of the purpose of the land within Sydney's drinking water catchments toyield suitable water should be unambiguously protected through the statutory planningscheme and enforced by reference to an effective set of NorB guidelines.

4. Sydney’s catchments and the NorB guidelines would benefit from a defined pollutantreduction scheme based on a predefined cap and trade system like New York’sphosphorous reduction scheme. This is likely to be more effective and transparent thanthe proposed offset scheme.

5. NorB needs to be linked to spatially specific plans so that adverse impacts can bedetermined on the basis of site capacity and background water quality.

6. Rather than weighing down the guidelines with technical information, it may be simplerto have clear guidelines on how to undertake the assessment of applications with arange of technical manuals or reference where necessary to a series of existingstandards and technical manuals developed for other reasons.

7. A comprehensive assessment of present land use is needed, complemented by a visionof future land use. A plan for how to drive beneficial changes in landuse would bedesirable.

8. Adequate institutional capacity must be available for planning and assessment of permitapplications and for compliance monitoring and enforcement.

9. A maximum population target or limit for the catchment could be set to minimise theimpacts of cumulative loads, as an increase in population has a direct increase inpollution of water quality.

10. Development of a "cap and trade" pollution or development permit system within eachcatchment may be an option for dealing with cumulative impacts. The caps would beset at levels known to be within limits (set using precautionary principles) and could bereviewed in the future. Furthermore, a cap and trade system would stimulate theclosure of dirty industries in order to permit new housing or higher value industries andlifestyles.

11. NorB assessment would be complimented by the development of catchment profileswith different modelled and measured pollutant loads. A framework could be



implemented where new pollutant load targets could be set on a regular basis - a"screw-down target". This would allow for market dynamism to work out what themost cost-effective pollution reduction methods and opportunities are.

12. It is important that the guidelines don’t institutionalise incorrect beliefs about catchmentprocesses. Therefore, the technical basis of offset schemes would need to be constantlyreviewed as new knowledge comes to hand. For example, despite common perceptionsabout the pollutant buffering role of native vegetation, technical doubts have arisenfrom work by Hairsine et al (CRC Catchment Hydrology) as to the way that nativevegetation in riparian zones buffers pollutants. Their work demonstrates thatestablishing and maintaining grass swards in these areas may have a more beneficialeffect on water quality than revegetation.

13. There is a need to thoroughly investigate the background trend regarding waterlogging, salinisation, acidification within the Sydney catchments, as these will impact onwater quality and on the capacity of sites to effectively absorb effluent irrigation orsustain specific landuses.

14. There is a need to investigate whether agriculture should be an as of right use in allareas where it is currently practiced. In some degraded catchments it may be better toplan to phase out agricultural production and concentrate on activities improving waterquality.

15. Encouragement of organic agriculture and other pesticide minimisation strategies wouldimprove water quality.

16. Rigorous control of the products used in households, by industry and on land may beuseful to reduce risks associated with the activities during the lifecycles of adevelopment.

Final default recommendation – not to be taken seriouslyA possible (but not necessarily serious recommendation) alternative to the NorB guidelineswould be to ease the pressure on the catchments to protect water quality and to sourcedrinking water for Sydney from elsewhere. This would allow the economic development ofthe region to progress uninhibited by environmental concerns about water quality.

A commercial opportunity could be the supply of bottled or cooler water to Sydney frominterstate or overseas. In many developing countries the quality of water is so poor that onlybottled water can be drunk. There is no economic reason why this should not happen inSydney.

An alternative to this would be importing water to Sydney through a pipeline from theSnowy scheme. This way, existing plumbing could be used to deliver water to consumers'taps, and wasteful packaging of water in bottles would be kept to a minimum. Of course,this alternative may have other impacts, such as the decline of aquatic ecosystems, butsurely a technical solution could be found to counter these problems.



1 INTRODUCTION‘Water is the driving force of all nature’ - Leonardo Da Vinci

1.1 Purpose of the report

This is the final report of an independent assessment of the PlanningNSW Neutral orBeneficial Effect (NorB) guidelines being undertaken for the PENGOs by Jason Alexandra andMara Bonacci of Alexandra & Associates. The main purpose of this report is to assess theguidelines, critically analyse them, compare them with other schemes and providerecommendations for improvement.

The purpose of the project is to investigate and assess the NorB Assessment Guidelineswhich are an instrument supporting the Regional Environmental Plan (REP) underdevelopment by PlanningNSW for the Sydney Drinking Water Catchments. The Guidelinesaim to provide direction in using development control processes to protect water qualitywithin the existing catchment management, statutory planning and environmental protectionframework operating in NSW.

The initial draft of this report examined the October 2000 draft of the REP and the July 2002NorB Guidelines. This final report has endeavoured to incorporate changes made in the July2002 REP and the November 2002 NorB Guidelines.

The PENGOs require a critical analysis and review of the proposed Neutral or BeneficialEffect Assessment guidelines. They have engaged the consultants to review documents andinternational literature and to liaise with environment NGO’s, PlanningNSW and the SydneyCatchment Authority in order to:

• Investigate comparable schemes in use, both in Australia and overseas, and provide asummary of the research and findings;

• Provide a critique of the scheme proposed by PlanningNSW for the Sydney drinkingwater catchments, including the likely ease of use and legal defence, clarity of intentand execution, scientific accuracy, and comprehensive coverage of types ofdevelopment;

• Where shortcomings are identified, provide options which will better address the needfor developments to demonstrate neutral or beneficial effect on water quality; and

• Make recommendations as to the options and alternatives which will best meet theprinciples of Ecologically Sustainable Development, as defined under the Protection ofthe Environment Administration Act 1991.

The results of the review and analysis form this report for the PENGO steering committee forthe Sydney Catchment project.



2 SUMMARY OF NORB GUIDELINES

"Charles Darwin …. Visited Sydney in 1836. After an uncomfortable tramp over the BlueMountains in a heat wave, he concluded that Australia could never become another America- its soil was too poor, its rains too unpredictable. Instead it must depend on becoming "thecentre of commerce for the southern hemisphere and perhaps on her future manufactories."As quoted in McCalman, The Age, 10 August 2002.

Sydney has in fact become the centre of commerce for the southern hemisphere and haslittle need to exploit the relatively limited agricultural productivity of its water catchments.

2.1 Summary of NorB and key relationships

Following the Sydney water contamination incidents in 1998, the NSW government initiatedthe Sydney Water Inquiry. This inquiry made several recommendations including:

• The need for water quality to be the primary consideration in decision-making affectingthe catchments (primacy of purpose in decision making);

• The need to develop directions, catchment-wide strategies and water quality objectivesto guide management activities and development decisions in the catchments;

• Establishment of a Catchment Management Authority; and

• Immediate implementation of a State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) as aninterim measure to protect water quality prior to the development of a RegionalEnvironment Plan.

Following the Inquiry, the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act (1998) was passed.The Act constituted the Sydney Catchment Authority and the Sydney Catchment AuthorityBoard. The Act requires that a Regional Environmental Plan (REP) be prepared for Sydney'sdrinking water catchments. This REP is currently in draft form. A major component of theREP is the concept of granting development approvals based on assessment of a Neutral orBeneficial Effect (NorB) on water quality. The NorB Guidelines are the subject of this reportand discussion of the REP etc is only provided to put the Guidelines in context.

Local Environmental Plans (LEP) provide the framework for the future development of anarea. The statutory component of the REP requires that Councils consider new informationwhen they are reviewing their Local Environmental Plans. The REP Framework documentstates that “a draft direction under section 117 of the Act is included with the draft RegionalEnvironmental Plan (refer to Section 117 direction). This direction outlines certain mattersaimed at protecting water quality which councils should consider when preparing localenvironmental plans. In addition the s.117 requires certain councils to review their LEPs totake account of the outcomes of the Strategic Land and Water Capability Assessments whenthese become available. In this way we can ensure that future land uses are matched toland capability”. (Pg 41)



Rectification Action Plans (RAPs) are to be prepared by the SCA for each sub-catchment inthe area. The aim of these is to rectify the impact of existing developments or activities thatare impacting negatively on water quality.

RAPs are considered to be independent of NorB, as they aim to address existing processeswhile NorB is the criteria for assessing new development but, if offsets are permitted thesewill potentially compete with RAPs for the chance to implement activities that are identifiedas the priorities for improvement.

These relationships are displayed diagrammatically in Figure 1 and chronologically in Table1.



To be replacedby final REP

New Developments

Existing Problems

Sydney WaterCatchment

Management Act (1998)

(Establishes SCA who's role isto review the developmentapplications and grant

concurrence, either withconditions or not; or to refuse

to grant concurrence)

SEPP 58 - ProtectingSydney's Water

SupplyIts purpose is to requiredevelopment consent foruses that are deemed tohave an impact on waterquality and to require theconcurrence of the SCAfor specific uses.

Regional EnvironmentPlan (REP)

NorB Guidelines(prepared by

DUAP)

RectificationAction Plans(prepared by

SCA)

Green Offsets forSustainableDevelopment(NSW Gov)

Local AreaPlans (LEP)(prepared bylocalgovernments)

Figure 1: Key Relationships


Alexandra & Associates – 16 Homestead Rd Eltham 3095 [email protected] Page10

Year Event Outcome/role1998 Sydney water contamination

incidents1998 State Government initiated the

Sydney Water Inquiry headed byPeter McClellan QC

Recommendations regarding regulation and managementarrangements for the catchments including:• Need for water quality to be primary consideration in

decision-making affecting the catchments• Need to develop directions, catchment-wide

strategies and water quality objectives to guidemanagement activities and development decisions inthe catchments

• Establishment of CMA• Immediate implementation of SEPP as interim

measure to protect water quality• Development of REP to replace SEPP

1998 Sydney Water CatchmentManagement Act passed

• The Act constituted the Sydney Catchment Authorityand the Sydney Catchment Authority Board• requires that a Regional Environmental Plan (REP)

be prepared for Sydney’s drinking watercatchments containing a provision "requiringconsent authorities to refuse to grantdevelopment consent to a developmentapplication relating to land to which the planapplies unless the consent authority is satisfiedthat the carrying out of the proposeddevelopment would have a neutral orbeneficial effect on the quality of water"

1999 SEPP 58 - Protecting Sydney'sWater Supply commenced underthe Environment Planning andAssessment Act 1979

Requires new developments in the drinking watercatchments to be assessed for their potential impacts onwater quality

1999 Sydney Catchment Auditundertaken by CSIRO's Dr JohnWilliams

• Independent audit of the state of the catchments asrequired by SCA's legislation.

• Broadly identifies hazards to water quality• Stresses importance of outer catchments

2000 DUAP released Draft REP -Sustaining the Catchments

SCA's overall framework for catchment management.Final version will replace SEPP 58.

Focuses on critical issues affecting water quality through:• Planning controls including BMPs, Local Environment

Plans, Rectification Action Plans,• Catchment Management strategies including strategic

land and water capability assessment, Small areamanagement plans, Catchment information system,Catchment Rectification Action Masterplan

Major points include:• Development of Guidelines of Neutral or Beneficial

effect of proposed developments on water quality• Pollution offset scheme

Table 1: Chronology of events/publications



2.2 Background to the NorB guidelines

The Sydney Water Catchment Management (SWCM) Act (1998) requires that a RegionalEnvironmental Plan (REP) be prepared for Sydney’s drinking water catchments. The Actrequires: "consent authorities to refuse to grant development consent to a developmentapplication relating to land to which the plan applies unless the consent authority is satisfiedthat the carrying out of the proposed development would have a neutral or beneficial effecton the quality of water" (SWCM Act, s.53(3)(c)).

The REP is the Sydney Catchment Authority’s (SCA) overall framework for catchmentmanagement. In its final form, it will replace the State Environment Protection Policy No. 58– Protecting Sydney’s Water Supply, and applies to all catchments that supply drinking waterto greater Sydney.

The purpose of the regional plan is “to ensure the catchments are managed to protect areaswhere water quality and land management practices are already good and to improve areasof poor water quality to meet local and downstream water quality objectives” (REPFramework Section 1.1).

The October 2000 Draft REP stated that it "will also give effect to the water qualityobjectives through the assessment of development proposals (Part 1: Section 4). Therequirement that all new development have a neutral or beneficial effect on water qualitywill, as a minimum, mean that rehabilitation actions being taken in the catchments are notundermined by new developments impacting adversely on water quality. Additionally, theextent to which a proposal contributes towards achievement of the water quality objectivesis a matter for consideration by consent and other approval authorities (clause 12(c)). Thismay be a lever to encourage developments in particular sub-catchments or reaches to havea beneficial effect on water quality where this is needed to move towards achievement ofthe relevant water quality objectives" (Sustaining the Catchments pg 14). This paragraphhas been omitted from the July 2002 revision, however.

PlanningNSW has developed the "Neutral or Beneficial (NorB) Effects on Water Quality"guidelines to be used by consent authorities when assessing a proposed development'spotential effect on the water quality in the Sydney catchments (Draft NorB GuidelinesNovember 2002).

According to the NorB guidelines, approval for a proposed development will only be grantedif it is deemed to have a NorB effect on water quality.

The Guidelines advise that a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality can bedemonstrated if a development:

• Has no identifiable water quality impacts

• Will transfer its water quality impacts for example to a reticulated sewerage system forsubsequent treatment and disposal

• Can contain its water quality impacts on the site of the development

• Will lead to an improvement or status quo in terms of offsite water quality impacts



• Does not adversely alter existing average (or median) conditions or variabilityin water quality

• Can offset its offsite water quality impact using an approved pollution offsetmechanism. (PlanningNSW 2002a)

2.3 Summary of the critical assumptions underpinning the NorBguidelines

The guidelines are based on a number of criteria for determining water quality impacts, eachof which is based on various concepts, contentions or assumptions (from PlanningNSW2002a). It is important that the assumptions are not accepted unchallenged. In this sectionwe document our interpretation of these assumptions and some of their shortcomings:

1. Has no identifiable water quality impacts

The ability to identify potential impacts is highly dependant on the methods used topredict impacts and the conceptual models used to link activities and impacts indifferent parts of the catchment. It also depends on what knowledge is used asbasis of the identification and whether active monitoring of impacts of different kindsof activities has been comprehensively undertaken.

2. Will transfer its water quality impacts for example to a reticulated sewerage system forsubsequent treatment and disposal

The transfer to a sewerage treatment system does not automatically result in a NorBeffect as it is well recognised that with say for example residential developments,associated diffuse source impacts via storm water can be major water qualityproblems.

3. Can contain its water quality impacts on the site of the development

Realistically this is major engineering feat that is based on achieving zero infiltrationand zero offsite runoff under all climatic conditions of any water which will degradewater quality. As no part of the catchment can be fully isolated in all circumstancesunder all risk profiles over the life of a development this condition requires serioustesting.

4. Will lead to an improvement or status quo in terms of offsite water quality impacts

This concept requires high quality data regarding the status quo including trend linesand variations under a wide range of climatic and other conditions. It also implies asound understanding of the causal factor regarding the status quo.

5. Does not adversely alter existing average (or median) conditions or variabilityin water quality

As most water quality impacts occur in a small percentage of time – eg extremelyhigh loads carried during extreme events or pollutants inflows during low flows etc –the NorB guidelines should be focused on whether the development could potentially



adversely alter water quality over a typical range of circumstances not just mean oraverage.

6. Can offset its offsite water quality impact using an approved pollution offsetmechanism.

The offset provisions are also important because they provide an “out clause”allowing a proposed development deemed to have an adverse effect on water qualityto be approved if DUAP and the SCA grant approval for a "green offset scheme". Insuch a case a developer will be made responsible for actions outside thedevelopment site that reduce pollution or environmental impacts, in order to result ina “net environmental gain”. It is unclear as to whether this was the intention of theAct. There are number of complex issues involved with the offset concept and itsapplication: for example, if the offset actions are important priorities to improvingwater quality why are they not being done via some other process, such as a RAP? Isthere unlimited opportunity for improvement? Furthermore, the guidelines don’t statea clear currency or exchange rate for offsets. The offset concept is discussed in moredetail below.



3 CRITIQUE OF THE PROPOSED NEUTRAL OR BENEFICIALEFFECTS GUIDLEINES

Critical Analysis of Proposal, Scientific Accuracy, Clarity of Intent, Ease of Use,Legal defence, coverage of types of development etc

The underlying principle of the NorB guidelines is a sound one. That is, a proposeddevelopment should not be granted approval if it will have a negative effect on waterquality. In practice, however, the guidelines could fail to ensure that this occurs.

The intention of the Act is clear in its requirement that, as stated above, "a RegionalEnvironmental Plan (REP) be prepared for Sydney’s drinking water catchments containing aprovision "requiring consent authorities to refuse to grant development consent to adevelopment application relating to land to which the plan applies unless the consentauthority is satisfied that the carrying out of the proposed development would have aneutral or beneficial effect on the quality of water". (SWCM Act, Section 53(3)c)

The intention of the NorB guidelines is clear in their intent that no land use proposal shouldbe approved if it has a negative effect on water quality. However the guidelines don’t seemto carry this clarity through and the primacy of purpose – the protection of water quality incatchments - could be lost.

Determination of what constitutes a neutral or beneficial effect can vary depending on avariety of factors. These include, but are not limited to:

• Accuracy and comprehensiveness of background information;

• Existing water quality in the particular reach or catchment;

• Knowledge of water management of the person making the assessment; and

• Clarity of the information provided to the assessor.

3.1 Proposals requiring approval

A shortcoming of the guidelines is the way that the NorB assessments apply to proposalsrequiring approval: "The proposed development is any development requiring consent underPart 4 or any activity under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.Development requiring consent is specified in environmental planning instruments such ascouncil Local Environmental Plans." (NorB Guidelines, 1.2.1)

Due to the number of local authorities (councils) is unlikely that the entire catchment will becovered by uniform planning conditions. If it were, it is unlikely that they would beinterpreted uniformly. Therefore, it is possible that a proposed development may requireapproval in one part of the catchment, and hence be subject to the NorB assessment, butmay not require approval in another part of the catchment. This possibility could beovercome by applying uniform planning conditions across the catchment.



3.2 Determination of water quality impacts

Determination of whether a proposed development will have a NorB effect on water qualityrequires an assessment of existing water quality for comparison purposes. It is necessary forthe project design to account for irregular, infrequent and abnormal occurrences such asplant shut downs, cleaning, flooding, fires and accidents. This raises the questions:

• What kind of risk and life cycle will be used?

• Will a standard assessment framework be developed for the life cycle analysis?

• What standards and procedures exist for life cycle analysis?

• What is the capacity of those undertaking the assessments to do so?

Furthermore, an underlying weakness is that the NorB guidelines use the existing waterquality as the benchmark rather than a desired water quality or water quality target. As sucha development only needs to not have an adverse impact on the existing background levelsrather than a desired standard. Over time it would be possible that, due to many complextrends, developments would need to meet lower and lower water quality standards, whilethe impacts would contribute to a declining background level.

3.3 Determination of a NorB effect

3.3.1 Offsets

If a proposed development is deemed to have a negative impact on water quality the basicprinciple behind the guidelines suggests that it should not be approved. This certainty isundermined by the introduction of the "green offset" scheme. In effect, a proposal withnegative water quality impacts can be approved if its proponents balance the impacts byrestorative works off-site, such as by way of revegetation. A genuine commitment to theprotection of water quality would ensure that revegetation works are carried out in areaswhere they are needed regardless of the developments proposed in the area.

The guidelines state that:

“The carrying out of the proposed development includes all the things that will beundertaken as part of that development even if they occur offsite. For example, if a newsewerage treatment plant undertakes bank restoration and revegetation works in thesubcatchment to offset its water pollution load, both the offset works and the developmentwould be considered in determining whether the development has a neutral or beneficialeffect on water quality." (NorB Guidelines, 1.2.1)

In this instance the definition of “a development” represents a major departure from theaccepted definition and is expanded to include works off-site as part of the project. Theseoffsets could (and perhaps should) otherwise be part of a LEP or RAP, which are to beimplemented as catchment restoration works anyway.



A further problem is “if a polluting industry is being relocated to a more suitable greenfieldssite, there is likely to be a removal of impact at the existing site but a possible increase inimpact at the new site. Once the offset scheme is in place, the assessment of whether thereis a neutral or beneficial effect would consider the impact of the ‘proposed’ development andthe ‘offset’.” (NorB Guidelines, 1.2.1)

In effect, this means that if another industry wishes to move in it would be considereddifferently to an existing polluter – this effectively endorses existing polluters and coulddistort the market value of the existing polluters – as in effect they own a defacto right topollute within the catchment. A more transparent and equitable approach is to create amarket in pollution reduction using a standard measure, such as New York’s phosphorousreduction market (see 5.3.1.1). Pollutant trading schemes have been used in varioussystems around the world and assuming they are designed well provide equitable andefficient means of reducing total pollutant loads in system (see Young et al 1996).

3.3.2 The Tests

The test for a neutral or beneficial effect (Guidelines Section 1.2.3) fails to take into accountthe prospects that aquatic ecosystems tend to operate within a range of critical parametersfor water quality and that when certain thresholds are exceeded catastrophic changes canoccur – eg algae blooms, loss of species etc.

The guidelines are also is based on assumptions regarding the capacity to contain pollutantson-site and fails to take into account the activities stimulated by the development – eg newresidential housing will result in many new activities associated with the lifestyle (the fullcycle of impact), not simply the construction of the house. One of the indicators of this testis if "the post-development water quality impacts will be less than or equal to the pre-development water quality impacts". (Section 1.2.3) Reaching a decision would requiremaking assumptions about future impacts of the development and the nature of a widerange of activities conducted under a full range of climatic conditions – a kind of climatelottery. A commitment to the protection of water quality should not entail such a largedegree of guesswork.

Section 1.3 of the guidelines rightly points out that "while consideration and prevention ofcumulative impacts remains a task best tackled during strategic planning cumulative impactsshould still be considered for individual proposals". Furthermore they point out thatCumulative impacts often happen over long time periods and are difficult to detect until theyhave occurred. By the time they are detected the water cycle impacts are often too late toremedy because of the large investment in infrastructure and lifestyle that has occurred.There are other options for mitigating the effects of cumulative impacts. For example, itwould be possible to cap and trade development (housing and/or intensive animals etc)permits within each catchment, thus limiting the total population and therefore the maindeterminant of cumulative loads. The caps would set at levels known to be within limits –precautionary principles and could be reviewed in the future – furthermore, a cap and tradesystem based on known and measurable pollutants would stimulate the closure of dirtyindustry in order to permit new housing or higher value industries/lifestyles.



Cumulative impacts can result form many processes not requiring permits eg acidification ofthe farm land can result in many indirect cumulative effects resulting in reduced pH of soilsthat can increase acidity of water and catalyse the release of and toxicity of heavy metals

Cumulative impacts are relevant to all proposed developments and all proposals should beassessed with the possibility of cumulative impacts in mind.

The requirement for neutral or beneficial effect applies to the normal operating conditions ofa development. Therefore, the assessment of neutral or beneficial effect on water qualitywould apply to specific flow conditions in the receiving water, typically normal dry weatheror average annual flow conditions. It is necessary for the project design to account forirregular, infrequent and abnormal occurrences such as plant shut downs, cleaning, flooding,fires and accidents. It is not made clear, however, what criteria will be used. Will astandard assessment framework be developed for the life cycle analysis? What standardsand procedures are required?

The NorB effect concept is underpinned by the assumption that the effects of a proposeddevelopment can be predicted and identified accurately. This goes against theunderstanding that catchments and catchment interactions are complex systems.

Catchment characteristics change over time, making it difficult to assess NorB effectsagainst a moving goalpost like water quality. The guidelines do not make it clear howexisting or background water quality is to be measured or modelled. Frequency ofmonitoring, timing of monitoring relative to rainfall, storms etc all have an effect onmeasurements of water quality. There are many variables involved, and values andtherefore decisions can change dramatically depending on how existing water quality isdetermined.

The guidelines note the variability in existing water quality stating "The term ‘no measurabledeterioration’ should be interpreted to mean ‘no measurable adverse change to the existingaverage (or median) or variability of water quality conditions’." (Section 1.2.2) Average andmedian can be very different. Good quality, comprehensive monitoring is imperative - eventmonitoring after each rainfall perhaps - to gain scientific accuracy.

The guidelines state that "In undertaking environmental impact assessment, assessment ofthe potential impacts of the development on the quality of water refers to the existing waterquality of receiving waters, whether degraded or not." (Section 1.2.1) This demonstratesthat the guidelines are aimed at maintaining existing water quality, rather thanimprovement.

Protection of existing water quality can be impossible, as water quality is not necessarilystagnant. Quality of water in a catchment is subject to change regardless of developmentpressures. For example, acidification is a recognised problem in the soils of the area and acertain outcome of this naturally occurring process is a decline in water quality.



Section 1.3 of the guidelines states that “Information on the catchments is also improving.For example, the Strategic Land and Water Capability Assessments to be undertakenthroughout the catchments will provide better information on the relationship betweenfuture land uses and water quality. This in turn may allow improvements in the assessmentprocess outlined in the guidelines”.

Why not wait, adopting a more cautious approach and ensuring that SLWCA are donestrategically in those areas with the highest development pressure, highest risk or mostlikelihood of generating non NorB impacts.

3.3.2.1 Assessment

Section 2.1.1 of the guidelines states that “assessment requirements will vary depending onthe type of proposal and approval required. For example, the Environmental Planning andAssessment Regulation 2000 specifies information that should be included when adevelopment application is lodged and this includes a statement of environmental effects.Much of the information to demonstrate neutral or beneficial effect on water quality isalready required. Some additional detail on aspects relating to water quality may also beneeded”.

In this situation, the onus is on the applicant to identify water quality issues. Unless theassessor is well informed about likely impacts associated with a particular type ofdevelopment it would be difficult to ascertain if something had been omitted. The applicantmay not be fully aware of all the impacts of the proposed development, or in a worse casescenario, facts could be deliberately omitted. Water quality is too important an issue todepend upon the honour system. For example, what about stormwater impacts for thosedevelopments connected to STP or increased runoff intensity due to increase impervioussurfaces?

Section 2.2 tends to get sidetracked by the technical aspects of effluent irrigation which willin many cases be dubious and difficult to manage under the climate conditions in Sydney’scatchments – eg frequent storms events, periods of soil saturation during wet periods etc.

Section 2.2.3 focuses on current recommended practices. There is little reference to bestmanagement practices. It states that current recommended practices should be adopted,but makes no mention of enforcing the use of these practices. A recommendation to use acertain practice does not constitute an incentive or compulsion.

In section 2.3.3 the level 2 assessment Calculation of Flows, Pollutant Loads andWater/Pollutant Balances, the preferred models should be specified. A standard for theiruse should be developed and refined then a body of work would be available for comparisonand testing against actual events.

The section on technical guidance for waste water irrigation seems to be an unnecessarydistraction. Surely reference to an existing standard is sufficient with the onus of proofbeing placed on the proponent.



Appendix 3 of the guidelines, which deals with water quality models, is basic and descriptiveand provides limited advice as to which models should be used under what circumstances.

Appendix 4 of the guidelines, which deals with risk management methodology, provides astandard semi-qualitative risk model which is not really very suitable for determining NorB asNorB implies certainty over risk of degrading water quality.

The guidelines state that:

"ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) states that continual improvement should be afundamental principle in water quality management. In badly polluted waters severalintermediate levels of water quality may need to be set and achieved in well-defined stagesuntil the required water quality objectives are met. In waters whose quality is higher thanthe adopted water quality objectives, contamination from all sources should be prevented.Developments and activities should not be permitted to pollute these waters down to thelevel of the water quality objective." (Section 1.2.2)

The NorB guidelines do not prioritise improvement of water quality. The above quote dealswith improving badly polluted water. A neutral effect on water quality does not constitutean improvement, merely maintains the existing conditions. In some cases a neutral effectcould become a negative effect over the long term. A commitment to continualimprovement of water quality would only allow developments that demonstrate a beneficialeffect.

Despite the fact that RAPs, LEPs and other such measures will be in place, the NorBguidelines should complement these measures rather than work independently of them ifthey demonstrably protected and enhanced water quality rather than merely sought tomaintain the status quo.

3.4 Scientific Accuracy

In order to assess if a proposal will have a NorB effect on water quality, two things must beinvestigated:• Existing water quality• Impacts of proposal on water quality.

The thoroughness and accuracy of these investigations have the potential to determine if aproposal will be granted approval or not. The ability to refer to many different types ofmodels could result in many contradictory modelling efforts with considerable disputeregarding accuracy and assumptions regarding different impacts.

Determination of existing water quality is easier said than done. What the guidelines do notaddress is how and when existing water quality is to be measured. Depending on thenatural conditions, water quality is likely to change regardless of any impacts resulting fromland use through natural processes such as salinisation, bed and bank erosion andacidification.



A further complication is the timing and frequency of monitoring - when it occurs in relationto rainfall events and the severity of those events has a significant impact on monitoringresults.

It is difficult to estimate the impacts of a proposed development on water quality when theexisting quality is not easily defined and is subject to change due to many causal factors.

Determination of the impacts of a proposal on water quality requires a sound understandingof any impacts potentially caused by the construction, operation and decommissioning of thedevelopment. This can be difficult for several reasons:

1. Applicants must outline potential impacts of a development in their proposal. Allpotential impacts may not be included because either the applicant is not aware of them,or the applicant may deliberately withhold information in an attempt to acquire approval.

2. The planning officer assessing the application may not have an extensive knowledge ofthe issues associated with water quality impacts in general or those associated with aparticular type of development. It is important that adequate resources are committedto application of the NorB guidelines so that implementation and enforcement can beeffective.

3. Once a development has been approved and constructed, it is impossible to controlhuman behaviour. For example, potential impacts of a housing development cannotpredict lifestyle choices and impacts resulting from a larger than average use ofchemicals in the home, or the amount of oil leaking from a vehicle.

The accuracy of a decision as to whether a proposal has a NorB effect on water quality isdependent on the comprehensiveness of the assessment.

The control of water pollution stands or falls on the ability of regulatory authorities tomonitor the incredible range of dangerous compounds detected in water and to trace themto their source. Under-resourcing of protection agencies and their lack of power to enforceexisting regulations is a major impediment to environment protection in our cities.

3.5 Ease of Use

The NorB guidelines will not be easy to use in practice. While there is nothing inherentlywrong with a tiered system, it would be far simpler if the guideline prescribed the kinds ofdevelopment which are at discretion of local governments and those requiring referral tobodies with greater expertise to assess water quality impacts. The sheer complexity of waterand catchment relationships means that any attempt to establish a guidance frameworkwhich incorporates both technical and planning processes is likely to be difficult to interpretand understand.

The inclusion of a large amount of technical information in the guidelines creates theimplication that they are technically accurate, although their accuracy will depend on thelocation to which they are applied. While technical knowledge increases over time, newrecommended practices are developed. Expert knowledge can and will developindependently of the guidelines, therefore they will require a process of review and revisionsto ensure adequate NorB effects assessments are undertaken.



Rather than weighing down the guidelines with technical information, it may be simpler tohave clear guidelines on approvals which make reference where necessary to a series oftechnical manuals. A planning framework that allows for the interpretation of the relevantand recommended technical information is necessary.

3.6 Legal defence

Although the NorB concept is clear and straightforward in itself, application of its principlescould prove to be somewhat difficult.

• By providing reference to technical guidelines such as effluent irrigation the guidelinescould become part of a legal defence that a proponent adhered to those guidelines.

• The guidelines don’t give clear advice as to when a development with suspectednegative impacts should be assessed by a higher or more expert body.

• The guidelines offer wide powers of discretion to local authorities.

• The guidelines depend on assessments of many complex biophysical relationships forwhich local authorities are unlikely to have sufficient expertise.

• The guidelines offer offsets which include on site and off site activities to be consideredas parts of a development – permits could be granted for polluting industry withinsufficient or ineffective offset provisions due to ignorance or misunderstanding.

3.7 Coverage of Types of Development

Potentially the guidelines cover all developments requiring a permit but many activitiesrecognised as damaging to water quality will continue to be outside the scope of the NorBguidelines. In particular agriculture will continue to be an as of right use with sizablecapacity to pollute due to its scale (area) and increasing intensity.

3.8 Life Cycle Analysis

A major deficiency of the guidelines is the way they deal with the life-cycles ofdevelopments. They state that "the carrying out of the proposed development refers to thelife-cycle of the proposal including construction, operation and decommissioning" (Section1.2.1). The guidelines should also include activities stimulated by the development, forexample transport of goods to and from the site.

Another factor that LCA fails to take account of is human behaviour and lifestyle choice.Once a development such as a housing development has been constructed and is in use, itis difficult to control individual uses and their impacts.

If approval of developments were based on the biophysical processes of the catchment,quantifiable thresholds such as total maximum daily load of nutrients should be defined.

It may be more equitable and efficient to development a defined "cap and trade" system onspecified pollutants. For example, allowing the expansion of the urban area of a town wouldincrease pollution associated with stormwater. In order to maintain existing levels, andhence achieve a neutral effect on water quality, approval would require a trade-off closureof another activity in the area producing similar pollution to that which the expansion wouldcreate. The amount of reduction can be more than one to one such as New Yorks 3/1 ration



for phosphorous reduction. This concept is a departure from the current offset schemeproposed but one which would be more transparent and open. It could also be used to drivewater quality improvements across the catchment via a predefined framework withoutallowing for major discretionary powers to assess the merits of individual proposals and theiroffsets.



4 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

"The ultimate responsibility for the pollutant discharges, increased runoff, and inevitablelong-term water quality degradation that results from urbanization lies with localgovernments. This responsibility is based on the fact that it is the local governments thathave authorized the urbanization (i.e. conversion of natural pervious ground cover toimpervious urban surfaces) and the land uses that generate the pollutants and runoff.

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board “Fact Sheet"

4.1 Introduction

The pressures that Sydney’s catchments are facing are common problems throughout theworld. There is an extensive amount of literature on improving water quality and applyingintegrated approaches to catchment management (ICM).

The nature of the NorB guidelines is that they are specific development control guidelines.Therefore, we have approached the review in terms of comparisons which have adevelopment control focus rather than trawling through the vast and often fuzzy literatureon ICM.

4.2 Relevant Literature

This analysis of the proposed guidelines for assessment of NorB effect on water qualityinvolved reviewing:

• The Sydney Water Catchment Management Act;

• The draft Regional Environment Plan (REP);

• SEPP 58 - Protecting Sydney's Water Supply;

• The NorB guidelines at November 2002;

• The draft Green Offsets for Sustainable Development concept paper; and

• The PENGO submission on the Green Offset Scheme and the draft REP.

Information on comparable schemes was sourced from Australian and overseas literatureand web searches. The findings are presented in Chapter 5.

4.3 Pollution

Increasing population growth, industrial and urban development and the cumulative loads ofenvironmental stressors – agriculture and urbanisation, historical pollution, decline incatchment and in-stream health etc – mean that management of water resources is arecognised global challenge.



Signatories of Agenda 21 are committed to an integrated approach to catchmentmanagement (chapter 10, Agenda 21). In a major international review of the status ofglobal water systems Gleick (1993) states emphatically that "the rising costs of treatmentand clean-up, combined with the increasing value of fresh water, point to a critical need toprevent further contamination using the information that we already have. The protectionof water resources from further degradation must become an immediate focus ofinternational efforts. For instance, better agricultural practices, a decreasing emphasis onpesticides, the recycling and reuse of wastewater, and more careful water developmentmust all become central to water and resource planning. To date, the more developedcountries have failed to address the question of source reduction and comprehensivewatershed management, and have instead relied on much more costly monitoring andtreatment strategies that will not be available to most of the less developed countries in theforeseeable future". He goes on to note that "Without fundamentally new approaches toboth development and environmental protection, the widespread degradation of waterquality that we currently face could become an unmanageable crisis".

The emerging global scale of the threat of from eutrophication alone is recognised in “Thenitrogen cycle out of balance.”

Internationally water pollution is usually defined as one of two distinct types ofcontamination:

• microbiologic contamination which is responsible for outbreaks of acute disease(such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Sydney’s water), and

• chemical contamination, which poses both cumulative and chronic health risks tohuman beings and aquatic life.

However, according to a recent LWA review (2000), in Australia the principle threats towater quality arise from increasing salt, nutrients and turbidity have been recognised as themost significant and widespread contaminants.

Water pollution is also categorised by sources:• Point source (eg: sewerage or industrial outfall) emitted from a specific and

identifiable place or pipe; and• non-point source (eg: agricultural pollution, run-off from mining operations and urban

stormwater run-off) which enters waterways in a diffuse manner and is more difficult toidentify and control.

It is widely recognised that because non-point sources of pollution are more difficult tomonitor and control than point sources using traditional regulation - eg pollution licensingetc - the regulation of land use has emerged as a principal tool for protecting water quality.

The management of urban water supply water quality has two major components: theprotection of fresh water sources from contamination and the treatment of drinking waterprior to use. Protection of water quality at source is crucial so as to minimise the amount of



treatment necessary. The protection of water resources requires the regulation andminimisation of upstream waste discharges where possible coupled with programs to reduceimpacts of agriculture and urban activity which tend to generate many diffuse sourcewastes. New developments can most effectively be regulated through stringent planning anddevelopment controls, existing uses need to be reformed by a combination of education,incentives, regulation and/or where change is a sufficient priority through programs whichresult in major changes in land use through for example compulsory acquisition programs bygovernments (Alexandra 2002).

4.3.1 Summary of Impacts

The environmental problems associated with water supply and water quality are interrelatedin complex ways. Moreover, the interplay of factors and synergistic effects vary greatly fromsituation to situation. There are three main classes of problem:

1. Disturbance of flow regimes.

2. Damage to natural infrastructure.

3. Pollution.

4.3.2 Disturbance of flow regimes

The flow regimes of many Australian rivers have been changed by the construction of dams,weirs, and locks, and by direct pumping. Diversion and regulation can cause reducedflooding, cold water flows in summer, interruption to fish migration, erosion to stream bedand banks, and general disturbance of natural ecosystems.

In highly developed and populated areas like Sydney's drinking water catchments, flowregimes are greatly disturbed.

4.3.3 Damage to natural infrastructure

While water is a renewable resource, the natural system that allows us to extract it andwhich conditions its quality, should be regarded as infrastructure (and as natural capital).The natural infrastructure of water supply — wetlands, streams, lakes, ecosystems andcatchments — is inherently non-renewable. Logging in forested catchments can reducestream flow: clearing and other development causes erosion of land and stream banks,which in turn causes turbidity and sedimentation: draining wetlands destroys their functionas water filters and nutrient sinks.

Natural infrastructure is integral with biological systems — ie the bed and banks of a streamare in constant interaction with the biota living in and around it.

Because of their location at the lowest part of landforms, water bodies are inevitably wastesinks. Water and aquatic systems play a key role in recycling nutrients. Problems arise whenthe capacity of aquatic systems to assimilate and convert waste streams is degraded.



4.3.4 Pollution

Most human activities produce wastes which are deliberately released to water or whichgravitate to water. The principle pollutants found in Australian waters are: salt, organicmatter, suspended solids, thermal waste (hot water), plant nutrients such as phosphatesand nitrates, micro-organisms such as bacterium, toxic substances such as heavy metals,petroleum derivatives, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cyanides and pesticides; and,rubbish. Table 2 below outlines pollutants, their common sources and their effects on waterquality.

Table 2: Pollutants, Common Sources and In-stream Effects

Pollutant Common Sources EffectsOrganic matter (biologicallyderived oxygen materials)aquatic

Dairies, stockyards,saleyards, food processingplants, fish farms, sewagetreatment plants, abattoirsand industry

Results in expansion ofbacteria population whichdepletes supplies leading todeath of fauna

Suspended solids (organic &inorganic particles suspendedavailable food in water)

Agriculture (landdegradation) Industry,quarries swimming pools,construction site runoff, fishfarms and mining wastes

Reduces/preventsphotosynthesis thereforelimiting aquatic plantproduction and reducing forherbivores, reduces visibilityconsequently the ability ofsight- fish to capture prey

Thermal wasteconcentrations

Industry, power plants Reduces dissolved oxygen,interferes with aquatic faunalife cycles, can cause changein invertebrate withsubsequent effects, highertrophic levels. Very hotdischarges can cause fishkills, and excess growth ofslime and algae

Plant nutrients i.e. phosphateand nitrates

Intensive agriculturalindustries (e.g.piggeries/feed lots) sewagetreatment plants

Eutrophication (over-enrichment of waters)

Pathogens (micro-organismse.g. bacteria)

Sewage treatment plants,abattoirs and food processingplants

Lethal effects throughinfection; risk of disease

Toxic substances (e.g. heavymetals, petroleumderivatives, poly-chlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), cyanides,pesticides)

Industry (e.g. manufacturingrefining), sewage treatmentworks, mining wastes

Inhibits important biologicalprocesses, causes physicaldistress in wildlife, hascumulative effect in foodchain, may be mutagenic orcarcinogenic (e.g. PCBs)

Rubbish Urban and agricultural runoff Interferes with aquatic fauna

(Adapted from Castles, 1992)



It is useful to distinguish between three kinds of water pollution: planned, unplanned, andillegal or antisocial.

Planned: the discharge of sewage, and industrial waste into streams and oceans. The sourceof pollution is acknowledged and the discharge permitted by law according to defined limitsand standards. The pollution comes from a point source — a pipe or drain from a factory ora sewage treatment plant etc.

Unplanned: the more or less accidental side-effects of agricultural, industrial and urbandevelopment, which, because of their diffuse and often deferred effects are hard to monitorand regulate. Examples are: salinity, turbidity, urban run-off and agricultural toxins. Thepollution is said to be diffuse because there is no point source.

Illegal or antisocial: the illicit dumping of toxic and other environmentally degrading materialinto storm water drains, sewers, lakes and streams. The pollution can be either point sourceor diffuse.

The Global Water Partnership identifies a range of options for improving water qualityincluding planning and land use controls:

• The planning process must take into account not only development options withinthe water sector itself but also scenarios for development in related sectors, thatmay have an impact on the water resources (e.g. water demand or water quality).Likewise, consequences of water management decisions in other economic sectors(e.g. tourism or health) should be an integral part of the analyses made during theplanning process. It is important that the planning process includes analysis of risks(climatic variations, as well as economic, political and other risks) and addresses thenecessary and adequate measures to reduce or manage risks. Plans should also takeaccount of potential hazard and the vulnerability of people and ecosystems toextreme events. The responsibility for the planning process itself inevitably restswith the authorities, be they national agencies, regional authorities, or river basinorganisations. What is important is that the responsible authorities design a planningprocess that allows for involvement and contribution from all affected parties,including the private sector, community groups and disadvantaged stakeholders

• Zoning identifies areas where specific forms of land use are prohibited or wherespecial rules apply. Examples relevant to IWRM are drinking water protection zonesand zones where construction is not allowed because of flooding risks. Protectionzones around wells and in recharge areas are useful for protecting ground water andpotable water drawn from wells. Protection zones along watercourses gives someprotection against direct pollution for instance from nutrients from fertilisers.



5 INVESTIGATION OF COMPARABLE SCHEMES

As pressure on water resources increases, governments need to consider water as aresource in its own right and manage it accordingly, including developing a guiding waterethic which is central to achieving a sustainable society (Postel, 2001).

5.1 Summary

There is a sizable difference between the policies employed by various cities and countries inregard to the protection of urban water supply and water quality – from Melbourne’s fullyclosed catchments (no development, no natural resource exploitation and no entry even forrecreation) through partial restriction to fully open catchments such as many rural watersupplies; Adelaide’s Murray water supply drawn from the lower Murray and some of theAdelaide Hills catchments.

Land use controls are primary controls used to restrict or permit activities which impact onthe quality of water flowing into storages. The intensity and extent of land use controls inplace are fundamental in determining the catchment condition. Those catchments whichhave limited landuse controls, i.e. those permitting a wide range of urban, industrial andagricultural activities, often require remedial or control actions such as stormwatermanagement programs and/or EPA discharge licensing as well as extensive water treatmentin order to supply “safe drinking water”.

In those catchments where development is permitted, development controls are used tolimit development impacts to acceptable levels. The typical approach to using land use anddevelopment controls for protecting water quality is by the setting of water quality aims andobjectives with reference to a set of measurable standards, and the granting of approval fora development depending on whether the development is considered a threat to theachievement of those objectives.

The NorB guidelines present a more elastic concept based on determining the "neutral orbeneficial effect" of an individual development rather than by specific reference to an overallcatchment wide target for a given load. It is therefore less well defined and less measurablethan a quantifiable objective, such as TMDL (Total maximum daily load). However a NorBdetermination would be more rigorous if it was based on reference to TMDL and clearlydefined water quality objective for each of the catchments. If this was to occur alldevelopments, activities and trends would need to be considered concurrently in terms ofopportunities to reach the desired targets. Whereas with NorB as currently conceived aproposed development needs to refer to existing water quality and therefore if upstreamimpacts have already degraded water quality the development needs only ensure that itdoes not degrade the water further.

Our review found that catchment planning, environmental protection and local governmentland use planning are typically separate processes, although it is widely acknowledged thatfor the better protection of water quality, this gap must be bridged. In response,



considerable government and community resources are devoted to partnerships and inter-agency processes. Catchment management is often based on developing legislativeframeworks and attendant processes for facilitating integration, coordination andcooperation between agencies, rather than through structural reform.

There is a great deal of information available in magazines, books, reports and on theinternet which states goals and criteria for good catchment management and theconsequent protection of water quality. There is significantly less information, however, onhow to actually achieve these aims through policies, planning, incentives, regulatory controlsand other such mechanisms.

Water quality management is becoming increasingly topical as populations grow andurbanisation increases and affluent populations become more concerned with health. Adegree of trial and error around the world is occurring as organisations responsible forprotecting water quality are faced with balancing complex tradeoffs arising from thechallenges of protecting the environment while maintaining economic growth and improvingsocial welfare. It is important to note that circumstances are different in differentcatchments around the world, and an effective policy instrument in one place may notnecessarily be successful in another.

The following section summarises findings of water quality protection frameworks examined,both within Australia and internationally, that include measures that are somewhatcomparable to the NorB Guidelines. The way that each Australian city studied approachescatchment management is provided in more detail in Appendix 1.

5.2 Accepted international concepts

The following section summaries the principles articulated by the Global Water Partnership(GWP, 2002) and demonstrate that the Sydney catchments approach is consistent withaccepted international concepts. For example, the GWP notes the benefits of using locationspecific regulatory instruments.

5.2.1 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach (ref: GWP,2002)

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) seeks to merge water resources policywith overall national economic policy and related national sectoral policies. IWRM meansthat water issues within every economic and social sector must be taken into account whenmanaging water.

Since the multiple users of water are competing, and the pressure on resources is increasingbecause of growing pollution, the participation of as many different stakeholders andauthorities as possible in the management of water resources is crucial. Water is a coredevelopmental issue; its development and management therefore affects almost everyactivity within the wider economy and society, including migration, land use and settlementgrowth and changes in industrial activity.



The Global Water Partnership notes that an IWRM-oriented planning process takes a"flexible and dynamic" approach to planning of development and management of waterresources. To be effective, an IWRM approach requires goals, policies and actions aimed atusing the policies to achieve the goals. They also note the importance of recognising thedynamic nature of the planning process and for IWRM to be effective, the systems in placemust by necessity be flexible. The plans should be continuously monitored and adjusted inorder to take account of recent development trends. Only a flexible and non-prescriptiveapproach will allow for such changes. Given that water flows according to catchmentboundaries, it is commonly recognised that areas of water management should be related tocatchment areas rather than administrative boundaries. However, existing institutional andregulatory conditions might discourage management of water according to naturalboundaries.

5.2.2 Peak bodies - Characteristics

Apex or peak bodies consist of a range of entities such as high level steering groups withinstate or national governments, inter-agency task forces (for specific purposes e.g. waterpollution control), and/or committees charted with the coordinated management of waterresources. The aim of such bodies is to provide structures for co-ordination betweendifferent organisations involved in water resource management. In some cases water policyand management is centred in a specific body of government but in many situationsresponsibility for water is shared between a number of bodies (e.g. ministries for irrigation,environment and public works) that may not be able to operate easily together. Here anapex body may provide a useful co-ordinating function. The functions of these bodies varyconsiderably. As many governments endorse and seek to use IWRM, the intended outcomesinclude:

• Improved co-ordination of government functions through integrated plans of action;

• Structural change within government agencies to facilitate better co-ordination;

• Creation of new departments or commissions and authorities for natural resourcesmanagement, aligned to river basins and/or ecological zones.

The role of an apex body depends on the economic, social and encompassing politicalissues, even more than on the technical IWRM issues. (GWP, 2002)

5.2.3 Regulatory Instruments

Regulatory instruments are a common means of implementing policy through their capacityto allow, forbid or restrict specific activities or prescribe specific results. Well implemented,they can be used in combination with economic instruments and can contribute to demandmanagement. Controls on land use and development, building regulations or on pollutingsubstances are examples. GWP note that depending on how they are implemented,regulatory instruments can be more rigid than some economic instruments, and that theyalso allow more area-specific differentiation. Regulatory instruments do not rely completely



on voluntary co-operation, but compliance is dependent on a basic level of publicacceptance. Regulations can be rendered ineffective without public acceptance, for examplecommunity indifference or through high enforcement costs.

5.3 International Comparisons

5.3.1 United States

5.3.1.1 New York

The quality of the drinking water … depends primarily on the quality of the source waterswhich feed the reservoirs. The source waters and reservoirs are vulnerable to degradationand contamination from various sources and activities, including, but not limited to:

1. Wastewater discharges to surface water and groundwater;2. Urban, suburban, rural, mining, silvicultural and agricultural land use practices that result

in non-point source runoff of pollution

It is the goal and intent of these rules and regulations to protect the public health byaverting future contamination to and degradation of the water supply and by remediatingexisting sources of pollution or degradation.

All regulated activities shall be planned, designed, scheduled and conducted in such manneras to not constitute a source of contamination to or degradation of the water supply.

– NY Water Shed regulations

The above quote sounds like the NorB Guidelines on steroids, particularly as it addresses allregulated activities including those that generate diffuse source pollution.

NY City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for the "WatershedProtection Program", a strategy which implements both protective and remedial measuresfor water quality. This program incorporates several key watershed protection initiativesincluding an:

• Agricultural program;

• Acquisition of watershed lands;

• Enforcement of watershed regulations;

• Initiation of environmental and economic partnership programs that targetspecific sources of pollution; and

• A comprehensive monitoring program which is more extensive than required bylaw. (Miele, 2001).

The watershed regulations are a comprehensive set of regulations designed to protect thequality of New York's water. Local governments must apply to DEP to have their WatershedRegulation enforcement program approved (Miele, 2001). They should also haveStormwater Protection Plans which can be submitted to DEP to address some or all of the



requirements of the regulations. These plans can be submitted individually or jointly withone or more adjoining local government.

DEP prepares Water Quality Protection Plans either for or with Counties that:

• Identify water quality problems and community character needs;

• Identify investments to correct existing water quality problems in accordance withpriorities;

• Have strategies for prevention of future water quality problems and consideration offuture community character needs in conjunction with the water quality goals (Miele,2001).

New York has another water quality protection measure in place, their Phosphorus offsetprogram. This program mandates that a new development generating a 1kg increase inphosphorus load must reduce 3kg of phosphorous within the same basin or watershed. Forexample, each 1 kg increase resulting from a new Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) orthe expansion of an existing plant, and/or any accompanying non-point source needs to beoffset by at least 3kg of reductions in phosphorus loading in the basin. The applicant caninvest in offset phosphorus reduction via the Catskill Fund for the Future or via stormwaterpollution prevention measures installed on existing structures or impervious surfaces in avillage centre or hamlet and approved by the Department. (Miele, 2001)

5.3.1.2 Raritan Basin, New Jersey

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Division of WatershedManagement is responsible for the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Project, which ismanaged by the New Jersey Water Supply Authority (NJWSA). After determining currentand desired water resource conditions, a Basin Management Plan is being developed whichwill be adopted by June 2003 as an official policy document of the NJDEP under NJAC 7:15,the Watershed Planning Rules.

The Basin Management Plan must address the issue of Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL). The Clean Water Act defines a TMDL process for:

• Managing the total pollutant loadings in a surface water that will not violate the SurfaceWater Quality Standards;

• How that loading will be allocated to point sources, non-point sources or future use;and

• How any necessary reductions in pollutant loadings will be achieved.

The TMDL process is mandatory for all impaired waters, and NJWSA (2000) notes that itcan profitably be used in unimpaired waters to plan for future pollutant loadings. Linkedwater quality and flow models are the foundation of the TMDL process.



5.3.1.3 California

In California the State Water Resources Control Board issues a permit for watermanagement to Counties, which are responsible for the management of water in each of themunicipalities in that County. The aim of the permit system is to "attain and protect thebeneficial uses of water bodies in the State".

The Clean Water Act established requirements for storm water discharges under NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) program (5 yr permits). The CaliforniaRegional Water Quality Control Boards’ use the Clean Water Act to Impose Land UseControls known as Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (“SUSMPs”). These plansare a condition of Municipal Storm Water Permits.

By imposing the SUSMP requirements as permit conditions in the NPDES MS4 Storm WaterPermits they issue to Cities, (the breach of which could be alleged as a violation of the CleanWater Act) the Regional Boards typically require cities to impose land use controls onproperty owners.

Orange County

NPDES Stormwater Permit compliance requires that storm water quality management isconsidered during a project’s planning phase, implemented during construction, andultimately maintained for the life of the project. Applying this concept to new development,it is intended that each new development will incorporate the approved program of BMPs tominimize the amount of pollution entering the drainage system.

Prior to issuance of building permits, permit applicants must submit for approval ofCity/PFRD Official(s), a water quality management plan (WQMP) specifically identifying BestManagement Practices (BMPs) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant run-off.

5.3.2 New Zealand

The New Zealand Resource Management Act (RMA) (1991) clearly defines New Zealand'sgoals for resource management. The purpose of the RMA is to promote sustainablemanagement of natural and physical resources, excluding minerals. It amalgamated allplanning, water, air and soil legislation. Parallel to the development of the RMA, the LocalGovernment Commission reorganised the structure of New Zealand's local government,creating 13 Regional Councils whose areas, as far as is practicable, conform to catchmentareas and 73 district or city councils within the regional council areas.

Regional Councils are responsible for maintaining the ecological integrity of their catchments,and are responsible for the management of water, soil, geothermal resources and pollutioncontrol. Each region must set out regional policies and plans that set the objectives for theintegrated management of resources in their area. This increases the role of regionalcommunities in natural resource management. However, planning and policy decisions must



be consistent with national priorities and matters of national importance as defined by theRMA (Alexandra, 1994).

A hierarchy of policy statements and management is put in place by the RMA. The Ministerfor the Environment produces national policy statements on matters of national significance.

5.3.2.1 The Wainuiomata Catchment, New Zealand

The Wainuiomata Catchment is an example of a "closed water catchment", wherepeople's activities are restricted because of the risks of disease and chemicals entering thewater supply. Water is collected from areas within the catchment that are 'closed watercollection areas'.

5.3.2.2 Wellington, New Zealand

The objectives and policies for water quality and supply in Wellington are contained in the"Wellington Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington Region". This plan states policiesand objectives for freshwater in the region. Guidelines on implementing the policies forwater quality and water supply are appendices to the plan. The plan includes appendices onWater Quality both within and outside of drinking water supply catchments. These providethe guidelines for resource consents (development approval permits) and monitoring.

The Appendix notes that "the water quality guidelines are expressed in terms of thereceiving water rather than the discharge. Thus, conditions on a resource consent must takeaccount of the effects of, for instance, mixing and existing discharges. This is specified inthe guidelines with the phrases “After reasonable mixing” and “the contaminant, either byitself or in combination with other contaminants”. The latter phrase is to ensure that thecumulative effect of all discharges to the water body is considered". (Wellington RegionalCouncil, 1999)

The terms "must take account of" and "must consider" are used in conjunction with "thecontaminant, either by itself or in combination with other contaminants, is not likely tocause…." The use of the term "not likely to" leaves the decision up to interpretation and amatter of opinion.

5.3.3 Sao Paolo, Brazil

Since 1991, river basin committees have been responsible for the management of waterresources in Sao Paolo. These committees have equal representation of the state,municipalities and civil society and provide a forum for public discussion, conflict resolution,planning and management in order to encourage a more client based and decentralisedapproach to water management. A state plan for water resources has been created andimplemented by a coordinating committee, and a state fund for water resources was createdto enable implementation of the plan at a basin level. A key feature of water managementin Sao Paolo is a water charge system for water extraction, consumption, anddisposal/treatment for the various consumers (municipalities, industries, and farmers).

Sao Paolo's resources management regime includes an institutional framework (four yearly



state plans, basin plans), financial mechanisms (state fund and water charge system), anddemocratic processes. However, the Global Water Partnership notes that permanent tensionexists between the different bodies of the basin committees, and conflicts have arisenduring the election of representatives from various stakeholder groups. Technical knowledgeis concentrated in state agencies and therefore they tend to dominate technical discussions.Involving numerous stakeholders in establishing the water management system is a timeconsuming process.

5.4 Australian Comparisons

Review and reform of water resources legislation in Australia has been progressing in allStates in response to the water reform agenda required under the 1994 COAG agreement(Maher et al, in preparation).

The COAG reforms require states implemented integrated catchment management andmake substantial progress on rivers that have been over-allocated or are deemed to bestressed, the Agreement left the definition of stressed up to each jurisdiction. The Stateshave adopted ICM and calculated stress in a variety of ways and within varying time frames:

• In simple terms by referring to land uses (South Australia);

• By levels of abstraction (Tasmania);

• By more complex calculations of abstraction relative to total divertible volume (WA);

• Gross changes in flow volume (Victoria);

• By blanket declaration that all regulated rivers are stressed (NSW); and

• Queensland intends to calculate stress in the context of the Water AllocationManagement Plans as these are developed for the State’s rivers.

(Maher et al, 2001 pg 49)

Commitment to implement the National Water Quality Management Strategy is a part of the1994 COAG water reform framework. Maher et al recommend expanding and integratingplanning frameworks to include a deliberate focus on water quality management (Maher etal, 2001 pg 9). The way in which different Australian states address these water qualityissues varies. The following section examines these differences.

Tables sourced from Maher et al showing the various management structures, plans andpolicies in the different Australian States are presented in Attachment 1.

5.4.1 Victoria

Under the Catchment and Land Protection (CALP) Act (1994) nine CMAs have beenestablished across rural Victoria. Each authority is required to prepare a 5-year RegionalCatchment Strategy (RCS) that establishes a NRM planning framework. The RCS must



support the objectives of other related legislation including: Environment Protection Act(1970), Planning and Environment Act (1987), Conservation, Forests & Lands Act (1987),the Water Act (1989), as well as related policy. The scope of a RCS includes protection ofcatchments through land use planning and management.

Local Government planning schemes are required to be consistent with these regional plans.Local governments are required to take into account the RCS in their planning anddevelopment decisions, although this depends on cooperation between agencies. The CALP(and the Water Act) grants power to establish designated zones including water supplycatchments. It is possible to specify land use controls to protect water quality within thesezones. Local government planning schemes may be amended subject to an RCS.

The Act provides for the development and gazetting of detailed Special Area Plans (SAPs)which may be prepared for special areas within a catchment identified by the RCS includingdrinking water catchments. These Plans may amend planning schemes and they are bindingon landowners. However to date no SAPs have been developed.

All Victorian rivers and streams have "beneficial uses" under the SEPP for Waters of Victoria(1988), and protecting these beneficial uses provides the rationale for setting water qualityobjectives and targets. Local Governments are bound to protect these beneficial uses, butin general this has not been incorporated specifically into local planning strategies. The CALPAct does not specifically require CALP Boards to address the Waters of Victoria SEPP,however recent schedules to that Policy specify CALP Boards and Local Government as beingresponsible for implementation of that policy (or parts of that policy).

In general, the CMAs and state agencies tend to operate in ways which encourage orfacilitate improvements in land use rather than being prescriptive or regulatory. There aregaps in institutional arrangements with regard to catchment management, as no oneorganisation has mandate to address the full range of issues affecting water quality, withthe central players being CMAs, local government, NRE and EPA. (Maher et al 2001, Pg 66).CMAs are not mandatory referral authorities for the local government development approvalprocess. The two bodies operate in parallel, resulting in a rather disjointed approach tocatchment management.

The CMAs have no jurisdiction over decisions made under the Water Act, unless they receivethese through delegation. Advice given by catchment coordination groups established underthe Water Act (s.191) have a direct statutory link to the operations of the water Authorities,but have no statutory relevance under the CALP Act.

5.4.1.1 Urban Victoria

The Port Philip CALP Board administers the catchments of Port Philip including the highlyurbanised Yarra catchment. Melbourne Water is responsible for infrastructure provision andwaterways management for a good proportion of this area. Working in partnership withMelbourne Water, the CALP Board’s main focus is on other natural resource managementmatters.



5.4.1.2 Melbourne closed catchments

Melbourne Water operates and manages Melbourne’s water supply catchments most ofwhich are closed to all forms of commercial and recreational activity. It is important to notethat these catchments have been closed for many decades despite numerous attempts toopen them to logging and bushwalking etc. The uncompromising nature of the “closedcatchment policy” has ensured that most of Melbourne’s water supply is of world renownedquality requiring little treatment and trade offs in quality have not been accepted. The policypre-dates contemporary ideas about integrated catchment management and represents agreat example of effective and dedicated or single purpose catchment management.

The Otway Ranges Environment Network (Tipler, 1999) point out that scientific research inMelbourne’s water catchments demonstrates clearly that logging substantially reduces thewater runoff. Old Mountain Ash forests, for example, yield almost twice the water of youngregrowth forests. Expert studies commissioned in the 90’s show quite clearly that theeconomic value of water to the community is far higher than the economic value of timbertaken from catchments. For these reasons, 90% of Melbourne’s water now comes fromcatchments that are completely protected - i.e. no logging is allowed.

5.4.2 South Australia

The Water Resources Act 1997 (WRA) is the primary Act for river management in SouthAustralia. The Act focuses on the management of water quantities and flows, although itrecognises the need to manage water quality, and seeks to protect water-dependentecosystems and their biodiversity. Central to this Act is the formal and comprehensiverecognition of the catchment as the planning unit for planning and implementation ofcatchment management.

The Act establishes a hierarchy of policies, plans and responsible agencies supported by arange of planning instruments. The authorities are:

• The Minister for Water Resources;

• The Water Resources Council;

• Catchment Water Management Boards (currently eight); and

• Water Resources Planning Committees.

The planning instruments are the Water Resources Act, the State Water Plan, CatchmentWater Management Plans, and Water Allocation Plans. In addition, local government mayestablish controls through the preparation of Local Water Management Plans.

Other Acts of relevance to river management and with links to the WRA include the:Development Act 1993; Environment Protection Act 1993, (Draft EPP Water Quality); NativeVegetation Act 1991; Local Government Act 1999 and the Soil Conservation and LandcareAct 1989.



Maher et al (2001) note that the WRA does not specify water quality management methodssuch as the use of targets tied to environmental values, though reference is made to theneed to ‘improve the quality of the water resources in the board’s catchment area and thehealth of ecosystems that depend on that water’ (s.92(g)(iv)).

The WRA aims to rectify any inconsistencies between catchment management plans andlocal planning schemes, closing the gap between catchment management planning and landdevelopment. Comprehensive approaches to water quality management in CWMPs will haveimplications for local government Development Plans and for Council infrastructure plans.

Under the Development Act 1993 local government is not required to incorporate waterquality protection into strategic planning and landuse zoning schemes.

The Environment Protection Policy (EPP) uses environmental values to establish waterquality objectives. Compliance with the policy will be enforceable under the EP Act. Theproposed water quality EPP will set in place a process through which waterways, estuariesand aquifers across the state will be examined, and environmental values will be determinedand prescribed. Maximum benefit of this policy would be attained if its main features wereincorporated into local councils' development plans. The Act enables Catchment WaterManagement Boards to make recommendations to local government to amend theirdevelopment plans.

5.4.3 Tasmania

Tasmania has no requirement obliging local government to take account of catchment plansin either land use planning or in deciding development applications. Local government is,however, required to further the objectives of the Resource Management and PlanningSystem, which contains "whole of government" sustainability objectives which areincorporated in the Water Management Act 1999. If a local government has administrativefunctions under the Water Management Act, it is required to further the additional objectivesof the Act.

Tasmania's Resource Management and Planning System has attempted to provide a whole-of-government approach to the management of the State’s natural resources through asuite of legislation and statutory policy. The system was established under the ResourceManagement & Planning System Act (1994).

• Administration of these Acts is overseen by the Resource Planning and DevelopmentCommission

• The Tasmanian Water Management Act 1999 (WMA) was developed within therequirements of the COAG water reform agenda.

The State government initiated a Water Development Plan for Tasmania in mid-2000. Theobjective of the plan is “to provide a strategic context for sustainable water use anddevelopment … by analysing strategic issues, highlighting strategic choices, and providing aframework for Government and community action.”



Controls may be placed over the harvesting of overland flow only where water resourceproblems are already evident. Maher et al note that Nevill (2001) has argued that such anapproach will make the management of cumulative effects extremely difficult.

Tasmania is the only state with a statutory committee whose specific purpose is to assessand permit dam construction activities. Maher et al point out that as Tasmania has notcreated statutory catchment planning agencies, it could be argued that this provides anability to develop strategic assessments for individual catchments based on yield andenvironmental needs - which would be difficult to achieve if dams were assessed by localgovernment. The committee could, in theory, develop strategic plans for the State's majorcatchments, and use this strategic framework to assess and permit dam proposals. At thisstage there is no evidence that the dam assessment committee is looking at this option,although the Water Development Plan may reach a similar conclusion about the need forstrategic assessment.

The State Water Quality Management Policy 1997 (SWQMP) is the statutory tool for waterquality management. This Policy was developed within the National Water QualityManagement Strategy (NWQMS) framework.

Protected Environmental Values (PEVs) and the setting of Water Quality Objectives (WQOs)are central components of the State Policy. Where possible these parameters areestablished on a catchment basis. The setting of WQOs is progressing with priority given tostreams with water allocation plans in preparation. The WQOs are linked to a water qualitymonitoring strategy and inform the setting of licensing conditions on point sources andreview of codes of practice followed by diffuse sources. Under current statutory provisions,PEVs must now be shown in planning schemes. Proposed amendments to the State Policyon Water Quality Management may make this optional for planning schemes but will requiretheir inclusion in their strategic plans. This is still a matter undergoing consultation in termsof the legal standing of PEVs in development assessment processes and there is someuncertainty about methods of their delivery through planning scheme measures. (Maher etal 2001)

The State Policy on Water Quality Management provides the framework for the managementof point and diffuse sources of pollution to waterways. Where an environmentally relevantactivity requires a permit under the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act, the regulatoryauthority can place permit conditions on that activity. Some diffuse sources, such asstormwater, can be controlled to some extent by this mechanism. Stream works can also beregulated in this manner, where the activity is not exempted by the local planning scheme.The Policy also requires a range of Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines tobe produced for a range of activities that have diffuse source impacts on water quality.These guidelines may assist in reducing the impacts of a variety of farming activities whichgenerally lie outside the scope of local government planning procedures.

Links between the WMA and water quality management exist. The WMA requires that aWater Management Plan must include an assessment of likely detrimental effects of the plan



on the quality of water. Further, a draft Water Management Plan, as far as practicable, isrequired to be consistent with any relevant State Policy. The State Policy on Water QualityManagement (clause 14.1) requires that, with respect to the abstraction of water, diversionor construction of in-stream impoundments, decision makers "must take account of thelikely effect of the proposed action on water quality, and whether it will prejudice theachievement of water quality objectives".

The State Policy on Water Quality Management does not currently require catchment plansto consider PEVs, and current guidelines provided to catchment planing groups do notencourage this either. Current proposed amendments to the policy may enable andencourage the incorporation of PEVs into strategic catchment plans.

Catchment planning in Tasmania has no statutory or policy basis, and has been developingin a largely ad-hoc fashion. The scope and quality of catchment plans which have appearedover the last two years varies considerably, and these plans are marked by a lack ofconsistency, and considerable variation in the degree to which they have been driven bylocal issues. The preparation of most of these plans has ignored NWQMS guidelines oncatchment planning, and most contain no links with either water allocation management(under the WMA) or water quality management (under the State policy referred to above).

5.4.4 Western Australia

The Water and Rivers Commission works with planning agencies and local government toincorporate water protection in the land planning process. Decisions on land use zoning andsubdivision applications have a significant impact on the protection of water sources. TheCommission supports the amendment of Town Planning Schemes and DevelopmentStrategies that reflect land use compatible with Water Source Protection Plans.

The Water Source Protection Plans provide a basis for establishing compatible land useswithin the applicable Public Drinking Water Source Area and are a mechanism for practicalimplementation of the Commission’s protection strategies. Local government decision-makers, State planning authorities and operational staff are encouraged to use thesedocuments as a basis for ensuring the long term protection of the water source (Water andRivers Commission 2002).

• The protection of Public Drinking Water Source Areas (PDWSAs) against the effects ofpollution is managed under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 (CAWS) and theMetropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Act 1909 (MWSS&D). These Actsare administered under the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995. The Act's by-lawsenable the Water and Rivers Commission to control potentially polluting activities, toregulate land use, inspect premises and to take steps to prevent or clean up pollution.

• The by-laws of the MWSS&D Act or CAWS Act apply in proclaimed PDWSAs. By-laws areused to control activities with the potential to contaminate the water resource, regulateland use, inspect premises and to take steps to prevent or clean up pollution.



By-laws are applied to prevent the pollution of water in areas that are used as a source fortown water supplies. The by-laws apply in catchment areas, water reserves andUnderground Water Pollution Control Areas established under the Metropolitan WaterSupply, Sewerage and Drainage Act or the Country Areas Water Supply Act. Surveillance ofPublic Drinking Water Source Areas is undertaken to enforce the by-laws.

The Environmental Protection Act 1986 also provides a very important legislative frameworkfor protecting water resources from contamination. The mechanisms under that Actinclude:

• Assessment of developments;

• Conditional approval for development;

• Licensing and industry regulation; and

• Environmental protection policies.

Existing and future drinking water sources are protected by declaring Underground WaterPollution Control Areas, Water Reserves or Catchment Areas.

Within a proclaimed area, the Water and Rivers Commission administers by-laws to regulateland uses and activities. Regulation of land use helps to prevent activities that could causegroundwater or surface water pollution.

It is not always appropriate to apply the same level of protection across Public DrinkingWater Source Areas. Three levels of water quality protection called Priority ProtectionAreas have been identified:

• Priority 1 (P1) - P1 source protection areas are defined to ensure there is nodegradation of the water resource. They cover land normally owned by the State wherethe provision of the highest quality drinking water is the prime land use value. P1areas are managed with the principle of risk avoidance.

• Priority 2 (P2) - P2 source protection areas are defined to ensure that there is noincrease in risk of pollution to the water source. P2 areas are declared over land wherelow intensity development (such as rural) already exists. Protection of public watersupply sources is a high priority in these areas. P2 areas are managed in accordancewith the principle of risk minimisation and so some development is allowed underspecific guidelines.

• Priority 3 (P3) - P3 source protection areas are defined to limit the risk of pollution tothe water source. P3 areas are declared over land where water supply sources need toco-exist with other land uses such as residential, commercial and light industrialdevelopments. Protection of P3 areas is achieved through management guidelinesrather than restrictions on land use. If the water source does become contaminated,then water supplies may need to be treated or an alternative water source found.



Water and Rivers Commission, 2002

5.5 Conclusion re comparisons

The comparisons demonstrate a variety of approaches in use around Australia and theworld. These approaches can be characterised by their stringency and specificity. Mostgovernments now accept that integrated approaches to catchment management and waterquality management are required. These usually involve forms of community consultationand interagency coordination. In contrast some States have adopted dedicated approachesto protecting and enhancing urban drinking water supply catchments based on theirunderstanding of the significance of doing so to their urban communities' wellbeing. InAustralia, Melbourne and Perth have systems which are prescriptive and restrictive based ondetermining the importance of protecting an area in terms of its importance for watersupply. However as Sydney has some mixed use catchments effective protection andenhancement programs are required. New York seems to have a situation most comparableto Sydney’s in this way. Further review of the NY approach is recommended, including itsadoption of stringent development controls and approval processes, its use of a riskmanagement approach and its defined offset scheme. It is also worth noting that New Yorkhas a land acquisition program in operation.



6 DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES, NRM AND WATER QUALITYOUTCOMES

The New Jersey Water Supply Authority rightly state that "Planning is the foundation forgood management, and action based on sound planning will result in cost-effectiveresolution of the issues".

Water quality outcomes that the implementation of the NorB guidelines aims to achieveinclude:

• Protection of aquatic ecosystems;

• Protection of primary contact recreation;

• Protection of farmstead water, irrigation water and livestock water;

• Protection of drinking water; and

• Protection of human consumers of cooked fish, shellfish and crustaceans.

These objectives have been developed by the community, through the Healthy RiversCommission Inquiry (PlanningNSW NorB Overview).

It is clear that any land use can impact on water quality. Therefore, when determining if aproposed development will have a NorB effect on water quality, both on and off-site effectsof the development should be taken into consideration. The entire life-cycle of thedevelopment must be considered, including its construction, operation anddecommissioning.

There is some community concern that the requirement for any new development todemonstrate a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality will limit economic growth.However, limiting certain forms of economic activity and encouraging others will almostcertainly be a necessary component of attempts to protect water quality. PlanningNSW'soverview of the NorB Guidelines points out, however, that "mechanisms that are beinginvestigated by SCA include stewardship schemes to reward landholders for sustainablemanagement practices, eco-labelling and targeted marketing of catchment sourcedproducts, and the identification of priority regional development actions. With thesemechanisms and supports in place, the stricter water quality controls that apply in thecatchments, could actually attract new sustainable industry to the catchments".

The PENGO comments on the REP rough draft identify their concern that the changes madeto the first draft Regional Plan weaken environmental and water quality protection. Theybelieve that "the removal of the planning control table and the reduction of SydneyCatchment Authority (SCA) concurrence levels place too much reliance on local governmentand weakens the SCA’s role. Local governments do not have the expertise or resources toadequately administer, monitor and defend the Neutral or Beneficial Effect Assessment. Nordoes the community have access to the expertise or resources to undertake court action onthe Neutral or Beneficial Effect Assessment". If local governments are to be responsible for



granting approvals for works with a possible impact on water quality, the decision should bemade by people who have a sound knowledge of the issues surrounding catchmentmanagement, rather than someone with a purely planning background. The quality ofdecision will depend very much on the capacity of those with planning roles in localgovernment to undertake complex water quality assessments. Furthermore, because of thecomplexity of assessing impacts at all stages of the development, all decisions should takeinto consideration the precautionary principle in order to achieve maximum protection ofwater quality.

The NorB guidelines only apply to developments that require government approval. Thecumulative impacts of smaller developments that do not require approval are not addressed.It is feasible that these could have a negative impact on water quality, and is a failing of theguidelines to adequately protect water quality from development pressures.

In order to ensure that any adverse effects to developers are minimised, thereby reducingdevelopment pressures, it is necessary that consultation with relevant authorities occurs inthe early stages of a project and that land use and water quality objectives are clearlyidentified so that they can be incorporated into plans for proposed developments.

It is difficult to determine if a proposed development will have a NorB effect on water qualityif the existing water quality of an area has not been adequately determined. Water qualityvaries, so a comprehensive assessment of water quality would require ongoing monitoringand estimation of average background levels and a detailed understanding of the likelyimpact of a specific proposal. It is possible then, for the outcome of a NorB assessment tovary depending on the information it is based upon.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexandra & Associates (2002) Accelerating Landuse Change in the Goulburn BrokenCatchment, Consultant’s report for Goulburn Broken CMA

Alexandra, J. (1994) New Zealand Legislates For Sustainable Development--A Brief Reviewof New Zealand's Resource Management Act, ACF

Alexandra, J. and Eyre, D. (1992) Water and Environment, Australian ConservationFoundation

Alvarez, D. and Director of Public Works (2002) National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem, City of Downey

Anderson, J.R. (1999) Basic Decision Support System for Management of Urban Streams,Report A: Development of The Classification System for Urban Streams, Land andWater Resources Research and Development Corporation

ARMCANZ & ANZECC (1994) National Water Quality Management Strategy - Policies andPrinciples, Australian Water and Wastewater Association

Australian Water Technologies (2001) Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report 2000-2001,Sydney Catchment Authority

Bell, J. et al (1996) Managing Australia's Inland Waters, Prime Minister's Science andEngineering Council, Department of Industry, Science and Tourism

Castles I. (1992) Australia's Environment Issues and Facts. ABS.

City Of Downey (2002) Overview of the Permit and Implementation Issues, City of DowneyAttorneys Department, Continuing Education Program

CSIRO (1995) Water Works, ECOS 85, Spring 1995

Cullen, P. (1998) Water in the Australian Environment: Ecology, Knowledge and Reform.CRCFE Canberra

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2000) Victoria's Salinity ManagementFramework - Restoring our Catchments, State of Victoria

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) www.nre.vic.gov.au

Edge Land Planning (2002) Review of Planning Controls in Sydney Drinking WaterCatchment LEPs, Planning NSW

Gleick P.H. (1993) Water in Crisis - A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.



Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2002) Integrated Water Resources Management Toolbox,,http://www.gwp.ihe.nl/wwwroot/GwpORG, Global Water Partnership, NetherlandsWater Partnership

Government of NSW (1998) Sydney Water Catchment Management (EnvironmentProtection) Regulation 2001, NSW Government Information Service

Government of NSW (1998) Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998, NSWGovernment Information Service

Government of NSW (1999) Sydney Water Catchment Management Transitional Regulation1999, NSW Government Information Service

Government of NSW (2000) State Environmental Planning Policy No 58 - Protecting Sydney'sWater Supply, NSW Government Information Service

Government of NSW (2000) Sydney Water Catchment Management (General) Regulation2000, NSW Government Information Service

Government of NSW (2001) Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Act 2001,NSW Government Information Service

Hairsine, P.B. (1996) Comparing grass filter strips and near-natural riparian zones forbuffering intense hillslope pollutant sources. First National Conference on StreamManagement in Australia. CRC for Catchment Hydrology.

Industry Commission (1992) Water Resources and Waste Water Disposal, Commonwealth ofAustralia

Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (2000) The JVAP Research Update Series No 1 - TreesWater and Salt: An Australian Guide to Using Trees for Healthy Catchments andProductive Farms, RIRDC

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (1996) In RiparianManagement 1 - Managing Riparian Land LWRRDC, Canberra, pp. 8.

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (1996) In RiparianManagement 3 - Water Quality LWRRDC, Canberra, pp. 6.

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (1996) In RiparianManagement 4 - River Ecosystems LWRRDC, Canberra, pp. 6.

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (1996) In RiparianManagement 5 - Land-based Ecosystems LWRRDC, Canberra, pp. 6.

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (1998) In RiparianManagement 7 - Managing Snags in Rivers LWRRDC, Canberra, pp. 10.



Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, 1999, Riparian LandManagement Technical Guidelines, Volume 1, LWRRDC

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, 1999, Riparian LandManagement Technical Guidelines, Volume 2, LWRRDC

Maher M., Nevill, J. and Nichols, P. (2001) Improving The Legislative Basis For RiverManagement In Australia - Stage 2 Report, Land and Water Australia, Canberra

McCalman, J. (2002) In We should all pay for a good education The Age, Melbourne, pp. 7.

Miele, J.A. (2001) NY City's Watershed Protection Program summary, assessment and longterm plan, Department of Environmental Protection, New York City.

Moreton Bay Catchment, 1998, Water Quality Management Strategy, City of Ipswich

Mouritz, M. and Newman, P. (1992) Sustainable Urban Water Systems, Research ProjectAnnual Report, Murdoch University

New Jersey Water Supply Authority (2000) Watershed Management For The Raritan RiverBasin- General Scope Of Work Phase 2: Management Plan Development And InterimProtection/Restoration Projects,

NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (2000) Sustaining the Catchments -Guidelines on neutral or beneficial effect on water quality - Options Paper, NSWGovernment Information Service

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2002) Green Offsets for Sustainable Development,EPA NSW, Land & Water Conservation, National Parks & Wildlife Service NSW andPlanning NSW

Peak Environment Non-Government Organisations (PENGOs) (2002) Submission On GreenOffsets For Sustainable Development Concept Paper, PENGOs

Peak Environment Non-Government Organisations (PENGOs) (2002) Sustaining TheCatchments Regional Plan Rough Draft Release May 2002 - Submission From ThePeak Environment Non-Government Organisations,

Pirgram J.J. (1986) Issues in the Management of Australia's Water Resources, LongmanCheshire, Melbourne.

PlanningNSW (2002a) Neutral or Beneficial Effect on Water Quality Assessment Guidelines -Overview, PlanningNSW

PlanningNSW (2002b) Sustaining the Catchments - A regional plan for the drinking watercatchments of Sydney and adjacent regional centres, NSW Government InformationService



PlanningNSW and the Sydney Catchment Authority (2002) Sustaining the Catchments - ARegional Plan for the drinking water catchments of Sydney and adjacent regionalcentres, July 2002

Postel, S. (2001) Keynote speaker, River Business – turning community vision into reality,Riversymposium, River Festival, Brisbane 2001 www.riverfestival.com.au

RMIT University (2001) Catchment Management and Planning Short Course Program andReading Guide, School of Social Science and Planning, RMIT University

Rutherford, I. D. et al (2000) A Rehabilitation Manual for Australian Streams Volume 1,Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology and Land And WaterResources Research and Development Corporation

Rutherford, I. D. et al (2000) A Rehabilitation Manual for Australian Streams Volume 2,Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology and Land And WaterResources Research and Development Corporation

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (2002) Fact Sheet No. R9-2002-0001,http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/

Sydney Catchment Authority (2001) SCA Annual Environment Report 2000-2001, SCA

Sydney Catchment Authority and PlanningNSW (2002) Draft Regional Environmental Plan forSydney Drinking Water Catchments, NSW Government Information Service

The World Bank (1993) Water Resources Management International Bank forReconstruction, Washington DC.

Thomas, J. F. et al (1997) Wastewater Re-use Stormwater Management and the NationalWater Reform Agenda, CSIRO Land and Water

Tipler, T. (1999) Clearfell Logging In The Otway State Forest And Its Effect On WaterResources In The Region, Address to the Geelong Community Forum ConferenceJune 1, 1999, Otway Ranges Environment Network (OREN)

Total Catchment Management Services (undated) In Healing the Hawkesbury-NepeanTogether Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust, Windsor, NSW, pp. 8.

UNCED (1992) Agenda 21, United Nations Environment Program

Water and Rivers Commission (2002), http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/, Government of WesternAustralia

Wellington Regional Council (1999) Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington Region,Wellington Regional Council



Young M.D, Gunningham .N, Elix .J, Lambert .J, Howard .B, Grabosky .P and McCrone .E(1996) Reimbursing the Future An evaluation of motivational, voluntary, price-based,property-right, and regulatory incentives for the conservation of biodiversity,Department of the Environment, Sports and Territories, Canberra, ACT.



ATTACHMENT 1 - AUSTRALIAN MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING STRUCTURES

South Australia: Management and Planning Structures

Shaded boxes indicate statutory instruments or structures

Management Structures Plans & PoliciesRiver-relatedaspect

Water quality Catchment waterresources

NRM Statutorylanduse

Water quality Catchmentwaterresources

NRM Statutorylanduse

State level EnvironmentProtection Agency

Dept of WaterResources, withMinister advised bythe Water ResourcesCouncil

Integrated NRMBoard (proposed),supported by theDept of PrimaryIndustries

Planning SA (theDepartment ofPlanning).

Draft EnvironmentProtection Policyfor Water Quality

State WaterPlan 2000.

State NRM Plan(proposed)

??State PlanningPolicy??

Regional /catchmentlevel

Catchment WaterManagement Boards

Integrated NRMGroups(proposed)

CatchmentWaterManagementPlans

Regional NRMStrategies(proposed)

Sub-regional /sub-catchment

Water ResourcesPlanning Committees

WaterAllocationPlans

Local level Local Government Local Government Local WaterManagementPlans

LocalGovernmentDevelopmentPlans

Source: Maher, M, Nevill, J, Nichols, P, (in preparation) Improving the legislative basis for river management in Australia – Stage 2 Report;Land and Water Australia; Canberra.



Tasmania: Management and Planning Structures


Management Structures Plans & PoliciesRiver-relatedaspect

Waterquality

WaterResources

Catchments NRM Statutorylanduse

Waterquality

WaterResources

Catchments NRM Statutory landuse

State level Environmentand ScientificServicesDivision,DPIWE

WaterResourceDivision,DPIWE;ACDC*

ProposedStateNRMPolicy

ResourcesPlanning andDevelopmentCommission

StateWaterDevelopmentPlan

State Coastal, WQ andAg. Land Policiessupported by a modelLocal GovernmentPlanning Scheme(optional)

Regional /catchment levelSub-regional /sub-catchment

Ad-hoccatchmentplanningcommittees

Voluntaryregionalgroupings ofLocal Gov'ts

WaterManagement Plans

Catchment /sub-catchmentplans

Local level LocalGovernment

Local GovernmentPlanning Schemes

* The Assessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC) approves the construction of dams: local government is not involved.




Victoria: Management and Planning Structures


Management Structures Plans & Policies

River-relatedaspect

Water quality Water resources Catchment NRM Statutorylanduse

Water quality Water resources Catchment NRM Statutorylanduse

State level EnvironmentProtection Agency

Dept of NaturalResources andEnvironment, withMinister advisedby ad-hocadvisorycommittees

Dept of NaturalResources andEnvironment, withMinister advisedby the VicCatchmentManagementCouncil

Department ofPlanning andDevelopment.

StateEnvironmentProtection Policy(Waters ofVictoria)

State PlanningPolicyFramework(under thePlanning andEnvironmentAct)


Union of AuthorityCommittees(ss.108 ff)

CatchmentManagementAuthority

StreamflowManagementPlans; Bulk WaterEntitlements.

RegionalCatchmentStrategies


Nutrientmanagementcommittees

Groundwatersupply protectionarea consultativecommittee. (s.29)

CMA advisorycommittees

Groundwatersupply protectionarea plans;Special Area Plans

Local level Local Governmentstormwaterplanningcommittees.

Local Government MunicipalStrategicStatements;PlanningSchemes


Western Australia




MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES PLANS & POLICIES

River-relatedaspect

Water quality Water resources Catchment NRM*

Statutorylanduse

Water quality Water resources Catchment NRM*

Statutorylanduse

Cabinet NRMPolicy

State level EnvironmentProtectionAuthority / Deptof EnvironmentalProtection

Water and RiversCommission (WA)

Lead governmentagency and Peakcouncils

Ministry forPlanning egDUAP NSW

EnvironmentProtection Policy(Water Quality)

State WaterwaysStatement ofPlanning Policy **

Environment andNatural ResourcesStatement ofPlanning Policy **

Statements ofPlanning Policyframework

WaterwayManagementAuthority Plans


Regional NRMPlanningCommittees *

Regional WaterManagementPlans

Regional NRMStrategies


WaterwayManagementAuthorities; egSwan River Trust

Regional / sub-regional EPPs: eg:Serpentine-Jarrah;Peel Harvey.EPP SW Wetlands

Sub-regionalWater AllocationPlans

Local level

Local NRMCommittees,formerly LandConservationDistrictCommittees orsimilar.

LocalGovernment

Local AreaManagementPlans and LocalBylaws.

Sub-regional andLocal NRM Plans;

LocalGovernmentPlanningSchemes

Drinkingwatercatchment

Integrated wateragencyOr catchmentagency

Special area plansas per CALP

* WA's Cabinet Policy on NRM states that NRM region boundaries should be established on a catchment or bioregional basis.

** Proposed.
