MAV submission to Integrated Water Management Framework for … · Web view2018-03-09 · 17Draft...

Integrated Water Management

Framework for Victoria

Submission

January 2017

MAV submission to Integrated Water Management Framework for Victoria - Jan 2017

© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2017.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the owner of the copyright in the publication MAV submission to Integrated Water Management Framework for Victoria - Jan 2017.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.

All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed to 9667 5555.

The MAV does not guarantee the accuracy of this document's contents if retrieved from sources other than its official websites or directly from a MAV employee.

The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print, Braille and audio.

The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria. While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils.


Table of contents

1 Executive Summary................................................................................................................4

2 Introduction.............................................................................................................................5

3 Recommendations for the framework and its implementation...............................................6

4 Conclusion............................................................................................................................16


1 Executive Summary

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) appreciates the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s (DELWP) Draft Integrated Water Management Framework for Victoria.

The MAV welcomes the Victorian Government’s commitment to building an integrated water management (IWM) approach into the planning and delivery of projects that will enable our towns and cities to be more liveable and resilient. We recognise the challenges of anticipated reductions in water supply due to climate change occurring at the same time as densification of cities and towns due to greater population growth mean that new ways of approaching water management are required.

We are broadly supportive of the approach outlined in the proposed framework and consider it provides a useful structure for organisations with interests in water use, supply and urban stormwater management to work collaboratively with each other. The framework will help shared values and goals to be identified and financially smart innovative integrated water management solutions to be delivered.

The Victorian Government investing time and effort in delivering the framework as one of the priority projects in the Water for Victoria plan (action 5.7, p 93) will assist in raising the profile of IWM within senior echelons of local government. This is particularly timely given that all agencies need to plan and be smarter in their project delivery now, to be able to deliver community assets and local liveability outcomes in the face of changing climate and population changes.

We have a number of improvements to suggest to strengthen the potential for the IWM forums to be delivered to their full potential. In particular, these include:

Provision of a ‘water liaison planning team’ to assist councils prepare for the forums before they commence

Clearer articulation in the framework about the benefits of practising IWM, and that the purpose of the framework is to enable accountabilities to be transcended

Simplification of the descriptions in the proposed IWM planning process diagram Developing a systematic funding program for release of any state-contributed funding for

projects that may emerge from the process Developing a methodology for option identification and criteria for prioritisation

Developing tools and supporting materials before the forums commence will be vital to the success of the framework. Quality of preparation, not speed, will be important ingredients to ensure councils are both engaged and enabled to participate in forums.

5 MAV submission to Integrated Water Management Framework for Victoria - Jan 2017: January 2017

http://haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/water-for-victoria

Given the number of strategies being developed and implemented within the water sector, it will be important to be mindful of the impacts on council staff time. This is particularly relevant for councils in rural and regional areas where resources are constrained and there are many state government strategies and plans requiring their input.

Where there are existing forums in operation involving water authorities and regional groups of councils, we suggest the framework be flexible in enabling these to practise the framework methodologies without requiring new forums to be established or independent chairs needing to be appointed. Another alternative is to hold only a small number of meetings with executive staff in reaching agreement about principles and topics to be explored in the forums. These discussions could be agreed in writing, which would then provide a high-level authorising environment for agency delegates to work on developed detailed proposals. These arrangements could be re-assessed once there is a general review of the program.

Councils and water authorities are also under increasing pressure to deliver services more efficiently to higher standards. To avoid resources and funding being impediments to participation, it would be helpful for the Victorian Government to provide grant opportunities to renew drainage and water infrastructure in a way that meets future community needs as well as assists in advocacy for grants to the Australian Government. We note that the Australian Government already plays a significant role in assisting with road renewal. This would help councils to be able to innovatively address legacy drainage issues that often results in local urban flooding during minor rain events as well as deliver new stormwater harvesting and re-use projects.

While there is further ground-work required to maximise the potential for councils to be involved, we are pleased to see that the Victorian Government is bringing IWM to the forefront of local and regional planning.

2 Introduction

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), is the peak representative and advocacy body for Victoria's 79 councils. The MAV was formed in 1879 and the Municipal Association Act 1907 appointed the MAV the official voice of local government in Victoria.

Today, the MAV is a driving and influential force behind a strong and strategically positioned local government sector. Our role is to represent and advocate the interests of local government; raise the sector's profile; ensure its long-term security; facilitate effective networks; support councilors; provide policy and strategic advice; capacity building programs; and insurance services to local government.

Practising integrated water management is not new to local government, with many councils applying IWM strategically through municipal policies and IWM strategies, and initiating local water sensitive urban design and stormwater harvesting projects for open spaces, and more.


3 Recommendations for the framework and its implementation

While we are supportive of the approach outlined in the framework, we have some suggestions that will strengthen the capacity of councils to participate. In the table below we have highlighted elements which could be enhanced, accompanied by recommendations to further strengthen the framework.

Element of Framework

Comment Suggestion for changes to the document

Suggestions for implementation

Introducing IWM

While IWM is a familiar term for some, it is not well understood by everyone. Although a definition is found in the glossary, it would be beneficial to include a definition early in the document.

Insert a definition of IWM in the introduction p 5.

Rationale for practising IWM

The benefits which can be achieved from IWM and the implementation of the framework could be more clearly articulated. Section 5 of the framework provides information about shared values and figure 5 provides examples of projects rather than examples of potential benefits which will entice councils and other organisations to participate in the forums.

Improve articulation of benefits by:

Describing what councils will get out of participating in the framework E.g. greater investment in projects from other organisations, community benefits such as cooler greener cities and towns, flood protection and more.

Introducing call out boxes with short punchy key statements and facts for each case study. For example, “Six organisations pull resources





together to transform a concrete creek into an environmentally friendly cool, green space the community can enjoy”. Or “Stormwater harvesting project prevents pollution entering the river while keeping local urban parks green”. Also highlight the value proposition. For each project, what helped organisations to decide to invest in the project?

Introducing more or different case studies relating to smaller regional towns.

Merging the ‘examples of IWM opportunities’ diagram on p 17 with the ‘collaborative integrated urban water planning process’ diagram on p15 to demonstrate the shared value.

Geographic location

The framework will enable councils to be involved at a catchment scale and therefore more likely to benefit from initiatives which require connecting resources and impacts up and down-stream. Although there are advantages

Where councils sit in more than one defined region, make it clear that:

Councils will not need to join all forums and that they may choose the forum which best suits them.

Where councils are having difficulty in choosing which forum to attend, advice should be sought from DELWP to help make an





of planning at a catchment scale, the larger boundary may favour larger projects as opposed to smaller more localised projects. Councils will also need to show how projects that they seek external funding for fit into a bigger regional picture.

It is unclear for councils who sit within multiple regions about where and how they should participate. Some councils are concerned that they will not be able to feasibly participate because their resources will be stretched between multiple numbers of forums.

DELWP will play a role as a broker of information to those forums councils will not attend.

informed decision.

Institutional arrangements and stakeholder involvement

There are internal contradictions in the framework. On the one hand there is a strong focus on agencies understanding institutional arrangements (p 12), while at the same time a recognition of the need to be flexible and work outside of the institutional arrangements.

There are many reviews occurring on institutional arrangements which may lead councils to be concerned about the

The framework provides an opportunity to work outside of the current institutional arrangements where there is a shared vision and community need.

Rather than focussing on ‘clarifying’ arrangements (p 12), it would be beneficial for the framework to focus on how IWM has a purpose which transcends individual accountabilities providing the opportunity to innovatively deliver a shared vision, often with

Communication messages need to be developed emphasising that the purpose of the forums is to facilitate shared planning and flexible delivery options.





potential for them to face new requirements which they believe are more the remit of water authorities.

Councils also have quite a different remit to that of water authorities, with much of their accountabilities derived from local priorities and enabling legislation, rather than prescriptive requirements. This contrasts with the water sector which has quite prescribed institutional accountabilities.

Coordination with other state government agencies and departments such as Vic Roads, Vic Track, Parks Victoria, DEDJTR and DELWP Land and Planning departments will also need to be explored.

It is not clear how the community voice and that of developers will be heard within the forums. Further discussions will be required about how they can be involved.

multiple benefits. All organisations may equally need to step outside their existing responsibilities for this approach to be successful.

Change title of Section 4 (p 12) to ‘Organisational urban water management activities’.

Change title of Table 1, p 12 to ‘Organisational urban water management activities’.

Change ‘Accountability’ heading in Table 1, p 12 to ‘Activities’.

Remove the following text in Table 1, p 12 under local government ‘Drainage’, ‘Urban flooding (except where managed by Melbourne Water)’ and replace with ‘Urban stormwater management’.





A number of institutions are also working in IWM (E.g. CRC for Water Sensitive Cities on the Elster Creek catchment). It is also unclear how their work will feed into the forums and sub groups.

Include detail on how state government agencies and departments, institutions, developers and the community will be able to participate in forums or project work.

Give more consideration to how community and developer views can be accommodated in the forums.

State Government investment

The framework will allow potential projects to come to the attention of a multitude of organisations, including DELWP, which will increase funding opportunities for councils.

DELWP funding for the planning and delivery of projects appears to be opportunistic.

Release any funding for IWM projects in a systematic prioritised format to encourage councils to prepare for forums and to want to participate in forums by providing an incentive.

Resources required by participating agencies

We are pleased that DELWP has committed resources to support the forums. We are also supportive of water authorities leading the approach, given their specialist water management knowledge.

Many councils are concerned they do not have enough staff, expertise or time to commit to participating in the forums. This is particularly true of regional / rural councils and smaller metropolitan

Articulate in the document that DELWP will outline guidance and information before the first forums to lay the groundwork in setting out expectations and what agencies need to bring to them.

Provide a ‘water liaison planning team’ to support councils / forum groups to understand the opportunities and challenges within their region.

There is an opportunity to provide further support to councils through the provision of tools and





councils where there are limited human resources and constrained budgets.

There’s range of agencies involved and initiatives being undertaken to develop tools, such as those through the Resilent Melbourne plan, through the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, Clearwater, Living Rivers and the Monash Sustainability Institute. All have a place in supporting councils to practice IWM.

templates. E.g. Terms of reference

templates which take into consideration private landholders.

Stakeholder lists with relevant agencies and teams.

An FAQ specifically for councils, including an outline when and who from various council business units should be involved.

Sample council reports and policies.

At a metropolitan scale these could be delivered through the Resilient Melbourne initiative. At a regional scale, these could be delivered by DELWP, MAV and Clearwater.








Economic evaluation and cost allocation process

We support the development of an economic evaluation and cost allocation process tool to support the IWM Framework. Ongoing maintenance and renewal costs are a significant issue for councils, and these need to be factored into any analysis.

Detail of the process tool in section 8, p 29 is currently unclear and has not yet been broadly tested by councils and the water sector to our knowledge.

Given the framework is a high level document and that the evaluation and cost allocation process is a tool to help support the framework, it would be beneficial to remove the detail on the cost allocation process from the framework document to allow flexibility for changes to be made to it once greater consultation with councils and water authorities has been undertaken.

Articulate the broad concept of the economic evaluation and cost allocation framework process tool within text on p 12 rather than describing the process.

Remove figure 11 to allow flexibility in the development of the tool over time.

Remove references to accountabilities (see comments above on institutional arrangements).

Practically test the process with a working group consisting of council and water industry staff to ensure there is broad confidence in the process tool.

Ensure the process tool considers the lifecycle costs of proposed assets, including capital, operational, maintenance and renewal. Determining what is ‘community benefit’ will also require multi-agency collaboration.





Project planning The planning process in Figure 6 (p 19) could benefit from the addition of simple language, for example:

Work out what’s shared Choose the project Work up the detail Get it into your own plans Deliver on your part of the

project/s.

The process to identify values and options needs to be comprehensive and strategically guided. While there is always a place for opportunistic projects, forums will need to have some guide on how to identify and prioritise projects. Without such a methodology, option identification and prioritisation could come across as partially informed hunches rather than a logical process of assessment and analysis.

Initial forum meetings will need to set the scene for what will be collaborated on.

Articulate in document that DELWP will be developing a methodology prior to the first forums commencing.

Develop a methodology for option identification and criteria for prioritisation of options. If this is to occur within forums, specify that this will be occurring.





Implementation and maintenance

Consideration should be given to delivery and ongoing maintenance requirements for projects. While this is not where the discussions should start, it can become a sticking point between organisations and is worthwhile developing material to support conversations.

Develop draft template agreements that can be used to clarify implementation and maintenance arrangements.

Monitoring and reporting

Monitoring, reporting and evaluation is not strongly featured in the framework. The sample template in Appendix A has a ‘monitoring, evaluation and feedback’ section under project ‘implementation’, however the process for this to occur is not described in text and there is no mention of how the full program will be reported on across Victoria.

It will be important to elaborate on this area within text to ensure that we:

Build on expertise and knowledge, allowing lessons to be shared.

Document how successful a project and /or the framework is working.

Incorporate monitoring, reporting and evaluation into the process to evaluate process, projects, regional and Victorian outcomes.

Develop transparent reporting processes that span across all forums to communicate the successes and challenges arising from the framework.





Test assumptions. Provide robust evidence for the

business case to fund / continue to fund the framework.

Monitor the effectiveness of outcomes.


4 Conclusion

The MAV is supportive of the draft Integrated Water Management Framework for Victoria. We commend the commitment of the DELWP to work with multiple agencies to achieve positive outcomes for communities.

We also acknowledge with thanks its funding contribution to enable us to employ an EFT staff member for 12 months to work with councils on the introduction of the Water for Victoria plan and integrated water management.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with government to strengthen the framework to achieve their vision of resilient and liveable towns and cities.


MAV submission to Integrated Water Management Framework for … · Web view2018-03-09 · 17Draft...

Documents

Transcript of MAV submission to Integrated Water Management Framework for … · Web view2018-03-09 · 17Draft...