Attachment 2

Melbourne Water Corporation ABN 81 945 386 953 100 Wellington Parade East Melbourne 3002 Victoria PO Box 4342 Melbourne 3001 Victoria Telephone 131 722 Facsimile 03 9235 7200 www.melbournewater.com.au

23 April 2010 Caroline Chandler Acting Manager Sustainability City of Port Phillip St Kilda Town Hall, 99A Carlisle Street, St Kilda, 3182 Dear Caroline, Submission on City of Port Phillip’s Water Plan Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Port Phillip’s Water Plan. This is a great document and it is my opinion that the approach adopted by Council aligns strongly with Melbourne Water’s vision of a sustainable water future. It is very exciting in particular to see: - Commitment to stormwater quality reductions targets to improve the health of receiving waters - A strong focus on implementation; - A combination of stormwater quality and water re-use objectives; - A community engagement component; - A consideration of permeability (p.34) with a plan to update the targets adopted when Best Management Practices in stormwater are reviewed; - “Taking Action” section, which gives a strong sense of how this strategy will be implemented (4 key elements outlines), and includes a budget allocation. I thus hope that these elements are retained in the final strategy adopted by Council. I only have a minor comment on the detail of the document: p.24 first line of the Water Quality Management paragraph: the statement “Water Quality Management is the joint responsibility of Melbourne Water and Environment Protection Authority Victoria” is a bit vague and inaccurate, a revision is recommended. I look forward to continuing working with you on Port Phillip’s Water Plan. Kind regards, Marion Urrutiaguer Senior Stormwater Quality Planner

Response to the City of Port Phillip draft Water PLAN DEC 2009

Prepared by the SECRC Water Sub committee 22.4.2010

Water Plan sub- committee Letter to the SECRC Councillor John Middleton Chairperson Sustainable Environment Community Reference Committee City of Port Phillip. 22.04.2010 Dear John, The following document, Response to the City of Port Phillip Draft Water Plan December 2009, is provided to the SECRC as a formal response by the Water Sub- committee set up for this purpose. The Subcommittee members wish to commend the Council for its work in developing a comprehensive range of reports and initiatives for dealing with water issues in the City of Port Phillip. The members of the Water Subcommittee have put a considerable amount of work into understanding both the Draft Water Plan and the various reports that the Council has commissioned on related issues. Many of the issues are of a highly technical nature and we thank Council officers, particularly Caroline Chambers, for their assistance. We believe that it is important for the Council to find ways to present this material so that an informed community can be involved in setting targets and meeting aspirations. Many of our recommendations are directed to ways in which we think that the final report could assist in that regard. The starting point of the work of the subcommittee was to look at the vision and strategic direction expressed in the document and to consider how they related to this community. Generally we thought that the specific issues of our geography and the high density community which now constitute the City of Port Phillip need to be the focus of the vision and the strategies in the Plan. We are mindful of the future impacts of climate change and suggest greater weight needs to be given to the heat island effect and future opportunities for food production in an urban environment. Water demands also need to be calculated on the basis of these issues and the value of street trees as well as open space. We also tried to look at how councillors would proceed to make decisions on the basis of the Draft Plan. At this level we found that the underlying material now available is not sufficiently comprehensive and is not consolidated on the issue of water availability and costings. This would clearly impact on setting targets in the various scenarios under consideration. We have therefore made a number of specific suggestions relating to additional information needed for water capture costings. We understand that the contribution made by the Water Subcommittee may be the only substantial community response to the Draft Plan. We have therefore tried to address broader community concerns and to suggest ways in which the interaction between Council and the community could be enhanced. The issue of community input is critical to the proposition being put in the Draft Water Plan that the Council and its community can move in the direction of reduced water consumption in a hotter climate and with an increasing population. We propose moving to a more sophisticated Benefits/Value model for decisions of this kind. Such a model requires comparative and consistent costings across a range of issues with the community actively participating in choosing the services which it sees as important. We thank Roger Byrne in particular for his input on this model.

The subcommittee also looked at the ways in which other Councils are addressing these issues and some members have spent considerable time talking to and reading the Water Action Plans and other documents from other Councils. An ongoing issue for Councils is ensuring a whole of Council response to embrace water sensitive urban design principles. Information on projects undertaken to date suggests that the Council does not yet have a cohesive approach to WSUD across the whole organization. Project evaluation and open and transparent communication is necessary for this issue to be effectively addressed at an intra-Council level. We also strongly support the idea of the City of Port Phillip participating in one of regional greenhouse and water local government alliances now established across Melbourne. This will provide both a means of collaboration and an opportunity for comparison. Like other community response documents the content of this report is not necessarily the consensus view of all Water Subcommittee members but a compilation of all their feedback, thoughts and passions. We hope that the information contained in this response will be of assistance to the Council and request an opportunity for its presentation to Councillors. Yours sincerely, Jack Halliday (Convenor) 2 Albion Street St Kilda East 3183 0417 033 425

CONTENTS  SECRC Water Subcommittee – Role, Composition and Background Information .........................6

Ho  we w  think the final water plan for CoPP could be improved..........................................................8

1. Readability...................................................................................................................................................8

2. Setting a Context .......................................................................................................................................9

3. Addressing Vision ..................................................................................................................................10

4. Expanding the Strategic Direction ..................................................................................................10

5. Addressing Evaluation and Benchmarking.................................................................................12

6. Addressing Targets and Costings ....................................................................................................13

7. Addressing Internal Linkages ...........................................................................................................16

8. Addressing Partners and Stakeholders ........................................................................................17

Ad 9. dressing Policy and Planning Reform......................................................................................17

10. Institutionalising Water Sensitivity ..........................................................................................18

11. Addressing Consultation and Community Education........................................................18

12. Conflicting Demands on Council Funds...................................................................................19

13. Benefits Model ‐ For a Green City ..............................................................................................20

Summary of Recommendations.......................................................................................................................21

Ap pendices ...............................................................................................................................................................24

Appendix 1‐Geoff Parr‐Smith.......................................................................................................................24

SECRC Water Subcommittee – Role, Composition and Background Information The Water Subcommittee is providing this report to the SECRC to assist in its role as a reference committee to the City of Port Phillip. We hope that the information contained in the report will be of assistance to the Council and request an opportunity for its presentation to the Councillors of the City of Port Phillip1. The Water Subcommittee was established to facilitate an informed community response to the Draft Water Plan for the City of Port Phillip released in December 2009 with community responses scheduled for April 2010. Members of the Water Subcommittee were drawn from existing membership of the SECRC and others drawn from the City of Port Phillip community with particular expertise. The subcommittee has met since January 2010, initially with Hilary Chapman as convenor. An interim report was prepared and submitted to the SECRC in February which provided the structure for the current report to Council. Subsequently Hilary resigned as Convenor due to time constraints and was replaced by Jack Halliday. Geoff Parr-Smith has been an SECRC member of the subcommittee, and Ann Birrell has also provided some material to it. Community members are:

• Dr Clare Diaper, Environment Consultant, formerly of CSIRO’s Integrated Urban Water Systems Division;

• Helen Halliday, former St Kilda Councillor and long term environmental activist;

• Roger Byrne, formerly International Asset Manager at GHD Asset Management and author of many reference manuals on sustainable asset management.

The content of the report is not necessarily the consensus view of all Water Subcommittee members but a compilation of all their contributions, feedback, and passions. In the post February review of the Draft Water Plan members of the subcommittee found that a considerable amount of detailed work was still needed to provide an adequate response to the draft Water Plan. All participants agreed that Plan could not be adequately understood without reference to a range of supporting documents. Ready access to this material is considered essential to ensuring informed community responses. However subcommittee members found that information, background reports and other relevant material are either not on the Council’s website, or readily accessible on it. Information for the general public has been provided in more simplified form as part of the community consultation exercise conducted by the Council. This material covers the following areas: ‘Draft Climate Adaptation Plan – Climate Adept City’; ‘Draft Water Plan-Towards a Water Sensitive City’; ‘Draft Open Space Water

1 We believe that the information contained in the report will be of assistance to the Council and request an opportunity for its presentation to the Councillors of the City of Port Phillip1.

Management Plan- towards a Water Sensitive City’. These documents are largely aimed at providing a level of community education and reaction.

How we think the final water plan for copp Could be improved Readability

Sourcing of Information and additional Information We have included this section on readability because the final Water Plan will be in place through a critical period in the City of Port Phillip’s management of a number of significant decisions on water policy. Appendix 1 is a detailed contribution on that issue by Geoff Parr-Smith. We found difficulty in reading and understanding the Plan without first reading the background reports. The Integrated Water Management Strategy Report (“EDAW”), Draft Open Space Water Management Plan (“Grogan”), the SKM Report on Use of Non-Potable Water (“IMAP”), CoPP’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines, and the DSE Report Augmentation of the Melbourne Water Supply System (“DSE”) are essential background material without which the Plan cannot be readily assimilated. However these reports are not summarised and are not readily accessible from the CoPP website. All background documents to reports need to be readily accessible on the Council website.2

Whilst material from all of these reports is used in various ways in the Water Plan, the EDAW report is of critical significance, and reference to it needs to be expanded beyond the current short statement on p5 that the Plan incorporates the findings and recommendations of the study and the brief overview provided as an Appendix. Using the EDAW Executive Summary material as a starting basis for the introductory section of the Plan would provide a better context for the detail that follows. A section is needed (as a new Section 1.2) describing how the Plan was prepared3, referring to the various reports and their relationship to the Plan, and the process by which the Plan was generated. This would assist the reader to better understand the content and direction of the Plan. Other information has become available since the Draft Water Plan was released offering significant changes to the achievability of the 2020 water capture targets. This information needs to be incorporated into the final Plan4. The first document, the report on the Water Plan presented to Council by the General Manager of Environment and Planning, details the 2020 and 2066 targets and budgetary requirements as presented to Council on December 14 2009. The second is the report on Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse for Elwood Park, presented to Council by the General Manager of City and Infrastructure Services on February 8 2010. It proposes a major stormwater harvesting project which can provide nearly 40% of Council’s 2020 alternative water requirements.

Who Is The Plan Written For?

 website.2 All background documents to reports need to be readily accessible on the Council 2

3 A section is needed (as a new Section 1.2) describing how the Plan was prepared 4 Other information has become available since the Draft Water Plan was released offering significant changes to the achievability of the 2020 water capture targets. This information needs to be incorporated into the final Plan. 

Who is the target audience? It is not clear who the Draft Plan is directed towards. The most important readership is that of the Councillors and Executive, but in our view it would be very difficult for Councillors to assimilate all the material in the document without a great deal of additional reading. In its present form the Plan overall seems to work best for external stakeholders and funding bodies. After the Plan was released a glossy document with the same title was produced for general community use. Its text is well written and edited and while it does not cover all aspects of the Plan (it doesn’t detail targets or budgets) it does otherwise provide the appropriate level of information for its audience. It’s Water and Pollutant balance diagram on pp3–4 of the material provided for the education/consultation sessions is clearly intelligible and provides more information than the Draft Plan’s diagram on p18, and it could usefully replace that diagram.5

Definitions In the text of the Plan greater definition is needed of the term Integrated Water Management and its relationship with Water Sensitive Urban Design6. The term WSUD is variously used as a mechanism for water treatment and a means of water harvesting - the exact nature of this interrelationship and its relationship with Integrated Water Management needs greater clarification and consistency in usage.

Setting a Context The Plan has been released for community consultation at the same time as a number of other reports and consultations are being conducted including climate change mitigation /adaptation/open space/trees policies. We believe that more attention is needed to the hierarchy or context in which each of these reports is to be considered. The discussion on p31 “Transitioning to a Water Sensitive City” states that by 2012 the City will have commenced the journey towards increased resilience and will have identified solutions to its range of water management challenges. An explanation is needed as to how policies are to be integrated relating to Open Space/ Street Trees/ Climate Adaptation/ Mitigation and other Infrastructure measures and proposals. Climate change mitigation (carbon reduction) needs to be specifically addressed7. For example, where does the Water Plan fit in relation to both issues of climate change mitigation (carbon reduction) and climate change adaptation? The Report as it stands provides a context for adaptation but not of mitigation. Various water capture schemes can have a positive affect on carbon reduction (e.g. stormwater capture and processing in wetlands); others have a negative effect (e.g. those schemes which require extensive filtering, osmosis and pumping processes such as sewer mining). The Plan needs to include discussion of these issues. Additionally, one of the key issues consistently raised in community consultations relates to the care of CoPP’s street trees, but the Plan does not discuss this issue and the only relevant material is to be found in the Open Space Water Management Plan

5 The Water and Pollutant balance diagram on pp3–4 of the material provided for the public education/consultation sessions is clearly intelligible and provides more information than the Draft Plan’s diagram on p18 and it could usefully replace that diagram. 6 In the text of the Plan greater definition is needed of the term Integrated Water Management and its relationship with Water Sensitive Urban Design 7 An explanation is needed as to how policies are to be integrated relating to Open Space/ Street Trees/ Climate Adaptation/ Mitigation and other Infrastructure measures and proposals. Climate mitigation (carbon reduction) in particular needs to be specifically addressed. 

where there is reference to a Tree Management Strategy in development and to be completed in 2010. The Draft Plan’s conclusion that at least an additional 62 ML of water is needed for open space requirements will need to be augmented as street tree maintenance is more closely factored in8. More emphasis is also needed on CoPP’s specific water management issues in the context of CoPP’s proximity to the Bay and its geographical position at the end of a substantial catchment area. The discussion at the commencement of Chapter 7 in EDAW crystallises the relationship between nutrient levels in Port Phillip Bay, and the role of the CoPP in protecting the ecological health of the Bay, minimising sediment and litter discharges, and sustaining the amenity and tourism values of our beaches and foreshore. Section 2.1.3 on catchment areas within the CoPP could be augmented by providing details of stormwater volumes by catchment or postcode, and the associated areas of open space requiring water. Catchment based information concerning the factors affecting stormwater, waste water, sewer mining and groundwater availability and the respective cost implications is needed.9

Addressing Vision We think that the Plan needs to work on a specific Vision Statement for Port Phillip rather than relying on the words used in the Commonwealth Government National Water Initiative and the concepts of a Water Sensitive City developed by Monash University. The actual wording of this vision in our view has not been developed sufficiently to give guidance as to what should be the appropriate organisational and community responses in the CoPP. Some components of the vision statement need to address key elements valued by the community – open spaces, the place of trees in parks, streets and gardens and their role in providing shade and reducing the heat island effect, the recognition of water in our landscapes, the transition town concept of food production in urban locations, and the need to insulate our city’s open spaces and streetscapes against the effects of climate change.10

Whilst the committee acknowledges that wastewater and drinking water are not the responsibility of the Council, these components of the urban water cycle should be incorporated into all areas of the plan, for the concept of integrated water management to be fully developed. There are many potential actions where the CoPP can have influence over water usage and wastewater production and reuse. These ideas should be incorporated into the vision and throughout the Water Plan.

Expanding the Strategic Direction The strategic directions proposed in the report (pg35) are as follows –

• Institutionalise water sensitive urban design within Council 8 The Draft Plan’s conclusion that at least an additional 62 ML of water is needed for open space requirements will need to be augmented as street tree maintenance is more closely factored in. 9 Catchment based information concerning the factors affecting stormwater, waste water, sewer mining and groundwater availability and the respective cost implications  is needed. 10 Some components of the vision statement need to address key elements valued by the community – open spaces, the place of trees in parks, streets and gardens and their role in providing shade and reducing the heat island effect, the recognition of water in our landscapes, the transition town concept of food production in urban locations, and the need to insulate our city’s open spaces and streetscapes against the effects of climate change. 

• Continue to implement water efficiency for parks gardens and facilities

• Increase application of water sensitive urban design in roads drainage and streetscape works

• Implement storm water harvesting for open space

• Facilitate application of water sensitive urban design by the community

Various issues arise -

1. The term Integrated Water Management could be defined for use as an overarching term with the use of the term ‘WSUD ‘ in the context of water treatment as the primary function.

2. The strategic directions as outlined need to be expanded to address more broadly the whole municipality of Port Phillip rather than the Council and its operations.

3. Reference to open space needs to be expanded to include street trees and trees in open space areas. Reference could then be made to the importance of WSUD as a form of passive watering of trees as well as the more active use of tree pits for street tree watering.

4. The re-use of waste water is not given sufficient prominence. For example the EcoCentre has been using recycled water for vegetable and fruit production and other opportunities have been proposed for using captured water for food production in the CoPP. These and other opportunities need to be incorporated as part of the strategic direction for both Council and community in the CoPP.

5. The need for water efficiency should incorporate a whole of community response and should not be limited to CoPP open space and assets.

An example of this broader strategic context which could be incorporated in Section 4 of the Plan is the key guiding principles identified in “An Overview of WSUD in Australia’ (Tony Wong 2006) -11

• Reducing potable water demand through water efficient appliances and water efficiencies, seeking alternative sources of water such as rainwater and treated waste water reuse, guided by the principle of ’ fit for purpose ‘ matching use of water quality and end use.

• Minimising wastewater generation and treatment of wastewater to a standard suitable for effluent re-use opportunities and/or release to receiving waters

• Treating urban stormwater to meet water quality objectives for reuse and discharge to surface waters.

• Using stormwater in the urban landscape to maximise the visual and recreational amenity of developments.

Addressing Evaluation and Benchmarking We think more evaluation of the 2005 Water Plan should be provided. It would be useful to have more assessment of the reasons for water use decline in the municipality since 2001, especially the impact of continuing water restrictions on water usage for both Council and the community in achieving water reduction targets. As the Draft Plan stands it appears that the reductions are due to voluntary action whereas the results are generally consistent with responses generally to the State Government water restrictions (the State Government has a target of 155lts per person per day but the primary factor in Melbourne’s reduced water usage is due to water restrictions rather than voluntary changes in people’s behaviour). Better analysis is also needed on the reasons for the decline of 41% usage in the commercial sector. Such analysis may enable an improved focus on how this change can be consolidated and enhanced. Better analysis is needed on water use in multi- unit dwellings relative to stand –alone dwelling usage. Information from other municipalities (Yarra and Melbourne) indicates that the installation of hot water loop technology can reduce water usage by at least 20% in units. Other technologies may also be important in units such as remote metering devices. Information on the take-up of water saving devices relative to other municipalities, e.g. tanks/ shower heads would be useful. The take up rate in the CoPP of 4200 showerheads in a municipality with about 50,000 households is difficult to assess without comparative data from other municipalities. Similarly, the Water Balance Diagram on p18 shows 14ML of reused water, and 47ML of water being treated before entering the bay. Do these figures represent a positive outcome? Without comparative data they are difficult to assess. Generally project assessment needs to include comparative material to understand where the CoPP is relative to other municipalities. Most metropolitan Councils are 11 An example of this broader strategic context which could be incorporated in Section 4 of the Plan is the key guiding principles identified in “An Overview of WSUD in Australia’ (Tony Wong 2006) 

now in regional carbon and water related collaborative alliances which provide this arena for comparison and cooperation12. Did Schedule 56 of the Victorian Planning scheme 2006 (which requires that all new subdivisions meet WSUD standards) provide any opportunities in the CoPP? Did the CoPP take advantage of these opportunities? Schedule 56 also limits the velocity at which water is allowed to leave any development site. This important issue has not been included in the descriptions of WSUD’s treatment capacity in the Draft Water Plan. What Council evaluation has been done for WSUD projects to date? We note the comment in EDAW that while CoPP has implemented a range of projects much of it has been demonstrative and ad hoc in its implementation. (p13). An annual report detailing completed WSUD projects and evaluating their effectiveness would be useful. 13 Members of the subcommittee have looked at the Coventry St Raingarden, considered a flagship WSUD project for the Council. It appears that the design and construction of this project have been compromised because of the inclusion of 4 extra grates diverting water from the sedimentation basin and directly to the stormwater drain. The contradictory outcomes highlight the cultural issues involved in the adoption of new policy positions which require fundamental change to long-standing practice.

Addressing Targets and Costings

Integrating Reports, Plans and Targets In the Draft Plan it is stated that by 2012 the City will have identified solutions to its range of water management challenges. Is this the Water Plan Implementation Plan referred to in the A3 chart provided to members of the SECRC? The Grogan report refers to a Tree Management Strategy in development and to be completed in 2010. Is this related to the Tree Summit? The chart also refers to a Stormwater Action Plan (2009) but this is not a public document. It is very difficult for the outsider to follow the plethora of reports and Plans which are relevant to water planning in the CoPP. A statement outlining the relationship between the Water Plan and these other strategies would assist in understanding the whole process.

Targets and Cost Considerations in the CoPP The EDAW Report proposed broad targets for water conservation, stormwater quality improvement, and increasing alternative water sources. It outlined 3 scenarios for achieving best practice by 2050, 2066 and 2145 , with annual budgetary targets of $2.1m, $1.6m and $0.8m respectively, and recommended the 2066 target as being

12Generally project assessment needs to include comparative material to understand where the CoPP is relative to other municipalities. Most metropolitan Councils are now in regional carbon and water related collaborative alliances which provide this arena for comparison and cooperation.  13 What Council evaluation has been done for WSUD projects to date? We note the comment in EDAW that while CoPP has implemented a range of projects much of it has been demonstrative and ad hoc in its implementation (EDAW pg 13) . An annual report detailing completed WSUD projects and evaluating their effectiveness would be useful. 

‘reasonable and achievable’. EDAW also proposed 2020 targets for alternative water sources, and stormwater pollutant reduction. The Draft Water Plan supports these proposal and continues the Toward Zero 2007 target of a 50% reduction in community water usage from 2000/2001 levels. The most significant target is that for 2020, of providing 50% of future Council irrigation demand (approx 80 ML) from alternative water sources i.e. stormwater harvesting, groundwater, recycling waste water, sewer mining. The EDAW report is currently the most detailed source of information with specific recommendations for how and when an integrated water management plan can be achieved in the CoPP. However its recommendations are based on annual increments of about 8-10 ML of alternative water being generated each year and it does not discuss specific water harvesting projects. The EDAW report identifies that an increased annual investment of about 5.6% of Council’s current capital works program ($1.6m of $28.5m) would enable both the 2020 and 2066 targets to be met, by funding each year stormwater reuse measures of about 1460sq mt of rain gardens and tree pits, and one major water harvesting scheme of 8-10 ML/yr (requiring storage of approx 500 KL). These projects are costed at about $1.3m annually. In addition $275,000 of water efficiency measures for parks and open spaces would be undertaken. Another 750Kl of rainwater tanks could be provided by private users especially following the adoption of Amendment C78. It is difficult to identify how the EDAW Report has made these cost estimates especially in relation to water capture schemes. There are considerable variations in likely costs associated with water capture for various proposals in the CoPP: for example the SKM report shows costs of up to $70 per KL for the range of water harvesting projects it investigated in Port Phillip. The Grogan Report identifies a series of water capture schemes for various CoPP parks but proposes further work on this issue. Significant variation in costing of stormwater treatment identified in consultants reports primarily depend on type of scheme and location but also the selection of material and cost recovery period. These variations indicate the need for more detailed information and standardisation of cost comparisons.14

The EDAW report also points out that there is potential for funding major stormwater harvesting projects through the National Urban Water and Desalination Fund and points to some projects which it considers of greatest value to achieving the targets for the CoPP including stormwater capture from Elster Creek (p28). This issue was not specifically raised in the Water Plan (or in other associated reports such as the Grogan report on Open Space); however since then the CoPP in conjunction with Bayside Council and Melbourne Water, has applied to this Fund for a stormwater harvesting project at Elwood Park. The February (2010) Report to the Council on this issue points out that this project would provide Council with up to 30 ML /yr, which is 37.5% of the alternative water being sought in the 2020 target. Further, the expected cost of this water (at $1/KL), is well below the current cost of mains water (at $1.50/KL) and which, on some estimates could be expected to increase to perhaps $2.50 by 2014.

14 Significant variations in costing of stormwater treatment proposals identified in consultants reports primarily depend on type of scheme and location but also selection of material and cost recovery period. These variations indicate the need for more detailed information and standardisation of cost comparisons.

The Elster Creek water capture proposal needs to be specifically mentioned and its potential assessed in the Water Plan especially since it is both the cheapest source of water available to the municipality and will provide significant impetus to reaching the 2020 target proposed. It should be proceeded with even if Commonwealth Government funding does not become available. The possibility may still exist to expand the Elwood Park project and we believe that Council should re-examine this project especially if funding is forthcoming. The more recent identification of 30 ML of stormwater capture from Elster Creek by 2012 suggests that the 2020 target could be achieved more quickly. The 2066 target is perhaps too remote and subject to too many uncertainties, including the availability of external funding. Perhaps the 2066 target is most useful in providing one route for achieving best practice stormwater targets against which alternative scenarios with a range of budgets and projects can be assessed. It is apparent however that more detailed work is needed on options for reaching the 2020 target15. More attention is also required on the question of how the CoPP community can be brought into the important discussion now needed as to whether or not the 2066 scenario and its associated budget is the target which our community should select and on what basis16. Assuming the Draft Plan will become the Water Plan Implementation Plan we think it would be useful to incorporate more material dealing with the relationship between the price of water and costings of alternative water harvesting projects. Whilst we have been told that the costings provided in the SKM report needs revision, the indicative costings of those projects are of interest and relevance and should be made available to facilitate better public understanding and discussion of the issues. EDAW and Attachment 2 to the Draft Plan distinguish the amounts proposed for streetscape works (WSUD) from the stormwater harvesting projects. The Draft Plan conflates these and we think they should be separated, preserving the investment amounts suggested for each of these areas.

Broader Cost and Target Considerations The community target for 2020 of a 50% reduction in water use per capita appears to be aspirational, and the Draft Plan does not show how this could be achieved. Given the availability of desalinated water from 2012, it is evident that water restrictions will be loosened and it may be not be possible to achieve these reductions, especially with for-profit companies encouraging greater use of water. We think that this target, originally adopted in 2007, may need re-examination.17

15 The more recent identification of 30 ML of stormwater capture from Elster Creek by 2012 suggests that the 2020 target could be achieved more quickly. The 2066 target is perhaps too remote and subject to too many uncertainties, including the availability of external funding. Perhaps the 2066 target is most useful in providing one route for achieving best practice stormwater targets against which alternative scenarios with a range of budgets and projects can be assessed. It is apparent however that more detailed work is needed on options for reaching the 2020 target. 16 More attention is also required on the question of how the CoPP community can be brought into the important discussion now needed as to whether or not the 2066 scenario and its associated budget is the target which our community should select and on what basis.  17 The community target for 2020 of a 50% reduction in water use per capita appears to be aspirational, and the Draft Plan does not show how this could be achieved. Given the availability of desalinated water from 2012, it is evident that water restrictions will be loosened and it may be not be possible to achieve these reductions, especially with for‐profit companies encouraging 

The DSE Water Augmentation Plan provides material on the impact of State policies and models the linkages between climate change, government policy on water restrictions and the impact of the desalination plant. This information on water costing and its effects on consumption should be incorporated into the final Water Plan. 18

Addressing Internal Linkages Various linkages need to be made with other CoPP initiatives and reports, many of which are under current consideration. As Council addresses more directly the climate adaptation issues in the CoPP, issues of flood management and beach protection will be given closer attention. We understand that a broad review of drainage facilities is under consideration in relation to the impact of sea level increases. The Infrastructure Services of the Council is responsible for the Council’s drainage program and is giving early consideration to the impact sea level increases on current drainage capacity, the need for retaining basins, the impact of increasing ground water salinity etc. The complexity of the interaction between issues of drainage and availability of water to street trees needs to be taken into account. For example, repairing damaged drains and resetting bluestones programs routinely undertaken by the Council may restrict the amount of water available to street trees, by reducing ground seepage19. Council should review pollution hotspots and areas in which greater water reuse opportunities may be present. Figures in the Draft Plan, for example, show that there has been relatively little reduction in water usage at South Melbourne Market over the last decade. There may also be opportunities for Council to implement significant water harvesting and reuse projects in the major development application it is currently dealing with in City Road. We understand that Council has established both a Water Taskforce and a WSUD Technical Group. A formal mechanism for review of WSUD issues and is recommended for referral by the SECRC, councillors and the general community. Such a mechanism could be developed and applied at a local catchment level.20.

greater use of water. We think that this target, originally adopted in 2007, may need reexamination.  18. The DSE Water Augmentation Plan provides material on the impact of State policies and models the linkages between climate change, government policy on water restrictions and the im act of the desalination plant. This information on pconsumption should be incorporated into the final Water Plan. 

water costing and its effects on 

19 . The complexity of the interaction between issues of drainage and availability of water to street trees needs to be taken into account. For example, repairing damaged drains and resetting bluestones programs routinely undertaken by the Council may restrict the amount of water available to street trees, by reducing ground seepage 20 We understand that Council has established both a Water Taskforce and a WSUD Technical Group. A formal mechanism for review of WSUD issues is recommended for referral by the SECRC, Councillors and the general community. Such a mechanism could be developed and pplied at a local catchment level. a

 

Addressing Partners and Stakeholders The Draft Plan identifies partners in the preparation of the Plan – IMAP for the SKM report and Melbourne Water. Page 32 identifies the need for CoPP to work with other local governments on these issues. The Report should directly refer to the CoPP’s current Elster Creek water capture funding application to the Federal Government National Water Initiative with Bayside Council. As has been pointed out, CoPP is not connected to any regional or local government alliances with a primary focus on carbon mitigation and reduction issues. A number of these alliances also address water issues on a regional and catchments basis. Such linkages are of increasing importance in the development of coordinated responses to shared challenges. As the coastline issues assume more importance in Port Phillip, we suggest the Council consider joining the South Eastern Councils Climate Change Alliance, as proposed last year by the Port Phillip Environment Working Group. This association includes Bayside and the other Councils on the eastern side of Port Phillip Bay21.

Addressing Policy and Planning Reform An important aspect of the Draft Water Plan is the inclusion of WSUD requirements in all planning applications. This initiative is already in train with support through IMAC and Melbourne Water. With Council’s adoption of Amendment C78 it may be anticipated that WSUD standards will become a key component of planning applications. Additionally there is a need for Council to advocate with the State Government and the Building Control Act Board to require compliance with existing WSUD standards for all new developments and to build infrastructure capacity by requiring duel water piping, water loop technology and separate water metering in apartment blocks. 22

21 As has been pointed out, CoPP is not connected to any regional or local government alliances with a primary focus on carbon mitigation and reduction issues. A number of these alliances also address water issues on a regional and catchments basis. Such linkages are of increasing importance in the development of coordinated responses to shared challenges. As the coastline issues assume more importance in Port Phillip, we suggest the Council consider joining the South Eastern Councils Climate Change Alliance, as proposed last year by the Port Phillip Environment Working Group. This association includes Bayside and the other Councils on the eastern side of Port Phillip Bay 22 Additionally there is a need for Council to advocate with the State Government and the Building Control Act Board to require compliance with existing WSUD standards for all new developments and to build infrastructure capacity by requiring duel water piping, water loop technology and separate water metering in apartment blocks.

Institutionalising Water Sensitivity Unless it is implemented effectively, progress against the targets in the Plan will be slow or non-existent. The most important aspect of WSUD and developing a sustainable city is the issue of cultural change. With separate interests involved in the Planning, Design, Construction, and Operations & Maintenance of the city’s physical assets, it is essential that their training, skills/competencies, and contracts and performance indicators are aligned to address the outcomes desired. Additionally the actual work is almost universally contracted out which requires another level of documentation and performance oversight. We have already witnessed a range of areas in which the failure to institutionalise WSUD is impacting on performance in the CoPP. In some cases WSUD guidelines are not fully understood, in others opportunities for WSUD incorporation are not yet being taken up. The final Water Plan needs to include a strategy setting out how CoPP intends to institutionalise the Plan, including decision making framework and criteria against which to assess all relevant CoPP projects and programs, and an annual report on progress.23

Addressing Consultation and Community Education We commend the work being undertaken by the CoPP in reviewing all of its policies relating to climate change, climate mitigation and climate adaptation. Additionally water and related issues of tree, parks and gardens planning and management are under Council review. The complexities of these issues and their interactions are apparent. The Council is embarking on a major process of community education on these issues. As described in earlier sections of this response, we are concerned that the information being provided to the community is not sufficiently accessible to elicit an informed community response.24

The Water Plan is dealing with expenditures in today’s terms of nearly $100m, and will inform decisions about infrastructure which will impact on the liveability of the municipality over the next half-century. Concurrently, Council is making strategic decisions and preparing to take implementation actions. However it is apparent that complex decisions with long term consequences may be made before the community properly understands the issues or has had any opportunity to contribute to Council’s decision making. The detailed Draft Water Plan is too complex to enable informed responses, while the shorter community-focused document currently being circulated works well as a means of community information but is necessarily simplified and in particular it does not set out the budgetary implications of the Plan. We believe more than one option should be presented to residents and community, given what is at stake. We think that a different model of decision making should be

23 The final Water Plan needs to include a strategy setting out how CoPP intends to institutionalise the Plan, including decision –making framework and criteria against which to assess all relevant CoPP projects and programs, and an annual report on progress. 24 The Council is embarking on a major process of community education on these issues. As described in earlier sections of this response, we are concerned that the information being provided to the community is not sufficiently accessible to elicit an informed community response.  

used in cases like this, where long-term infrastructure issues are under consideration involving large expenditures and having significant long-term implications for community amenity and wellbeing. We think that greater community education and dialogue is needed prior to the development of detailed cost benefit analysis which could then lead to the Benefits Model process described in Section 13.25

Conflicting Demands on Council Funds The SECRC recognises that the Council has a huge range of activities and projects that it has to fund and operate across a large range of services. This normal Council business needs to be appropriately addressed, as do the impacts of climate change. We also recognise that water sustainability is only one of the key impacts that climate change will have on Council, including intense hot weather events, violent storms including high wind events, rain & flooding, hail & lightning, sea level rise, and water sustainability for our parks, gardens, street trees and green city as a whole. We are concerned that all these issues are being considered separately. Budgets appear to be being set without reference to an overall outline of total costs. Critical paths need to be identified to establish the timing for the planning and execution of the work required to be done over the next say 10 to 30 years. We believe it will be necessary for strategies to be developed across a range of climate change risks and then have all stakeholders consider the issues involved and vote to set budgets that reflect community concerns for these differing issues. 26

Balancing the Council’s future budget will be difficult unless all these issues are addressed and ratepayers are given the chance to decide on which programs they want reduced and which they want augmented or extended. Presenting the full case appropriately is the only way that this can be completed successfully. The Water Plan, and violent storm events affect everyone within the CoPP whereas flooding and sea level rise will affect selected areas rather than the city as a whole. It is now important to start to address issues in more detail. Council will need to address all expenditure items and to question whether existing policies are still appropriate in this new environment. 27 CoPP will need to consider -

• Whether existing activities can be given up or drastically reduced, e.g. kerb and channel maintenance to remove nominal water ponding of 50 mm. frequency of grass mowing in parks and gardens, bluestone resetting etc.

• What new activities/projects & levels of service can be funded.

• New rates and charges that can be justified / approved for the improved services adopted.

25We believe more than one option should be presented to residents and community, given what is at stake. We think that a different model of decision making should be used in cases like this, where long-term infrastructure issues are under consideration involving large expenditures and having significant long-term implications for community amenity and wellbeing. We think that greater community education and dialogue is needed prior to the development of detailed cost benefit analysis which could then lead to the Benefits Model process described in Section 13. 26 Critical paths need to be identified to establish the timing for the planning and execution of the work required to be done over the next say 10 to 30 years. We believe it will be necessary for strategies to be developed across a range of climate change risks and then have all stakeholders consider the issues involved and vote to set budgets that reflect community concerns for these differing issues. 27 Council will need to address all expenditure items and to question whether existing policies are still appropriate in this new environment. 

Tailored reports are the best way to get these messages across, but these need to address the different stakeholders and be written to suit. We believe that it is important to present different versions of these documents, directed to ratepayers, residents, Councillors, Council management and staff, and special interest groups. 28

Benefits Model - For a Green City One of the key ingredients for identifying the projects that should be undertaken is a clear benefit /cost priority ranking. At this point in time the Council reports relate to the physical water demands of the key parks but the approaches and strategies do not involve the smaller parks, street trees and impacts on private gardens as mentioned in section 2 of this submission. To be able to assess the benefits of all these projects and rank them against each other it is vital that Council develop a benefits model that incorporates all the triple bottom line benefits including social, environmental & economic. The Benefits/ Value model proposed is based on the practice guidelines for infrastructure management and decision making developed by the New Zealand Asset Management Steering Group. This benefits / value model should be related to what the key stakeholders believe are the benefits to our broad community. This model should be related to the levels of service targets that describe the likely outcomes for each project or stage of a project, e.g., will ensure street trees are capable of surviving the 2050 climate predictions. 29 Of course different stakeholders will have different perceptions of the benefits, and the model needs to reflect these differences, but ultimately it needs to be able to assess an average COPP stakeholder position and adopt a value that can be used in the benefit /cost analysis by all stakeholders. We really consider that ratepayers who will have to meet the budget outlays are the key group to be addressed. But not with reports on single options, but a set of options as discussed above involving increasing levels of service and their associated costs.

28 Tailored reports are the best way to get these messages across, but these need to address the different stakeholders and be written to suit. We believe that it is important to present different versions of these documents, directed to ratepayers, residents, Councillors, Council management and staff, and special interest groups. 29 This benefits / value model should be related to what the key stakeholders believe are the benefits to our broad community. This model should be related to the levels of service targets that describe the likely outcomes for each project or stage of a project, e.g., will ensure street trees are capable of

rviving the 2030 climate predictions. su

  

Summary of Recommendations 1. We believe that the information contained in the report will be of assistance to the

Council and request an opportunity for its presentation to the Councillors of the City of Port Phillip.

2. All background documents to reports need to be readily accessible on the Council website.

3. A section is needed (as a new Section 1.2) describing how the Plan was prepared

4. Other information has become available since the Draft Water Plan was released offering significant changes to the achievability of the 2020 water capture targets. This information needs to be incorporated into the final Plan.

5. The Water and Pollutant balance diagram on pp3–4 of the material provided for the public education/consultation sessions is clearly intelligible and provides more information than the Draft Plan’s diagram on p18 and it could usefully replace that diagram.

6. In the text of the Plan greater definition is needed of the term Integrated Water Management and its relationship with Water Sensitive Urban Design.

7. An explanation is needed as to how policies are to be integrated relating to Open Space/ Street Trees/ Climate Adaptation/ Mitigation and other Infrastructure measures and proposals. Climate mitigation (carbon reduction) in particular needs to be specifically addressed.

8. The Draft Plan’s conclusion that at least an additional 62 ML of water is needed for open space requirements will need to be augmented as street tree maintenance is more closely factored in.

9. Catchment based information concerning the factors affecting stormwater, waste water, sewer mining and groundwater availability and the respective cost implications is needed.

10. Some components of the vision statement need to address key elements valued by the community – open spaces, the place of trees in parks, streets and gardens and their role in providing shade and reducing the heat island effect, the recognition of water in our landscapes, the transition town concept of food production in urban locations, and the need to insulate our city’s open spaces and streetscapes against the effects of climate change.

11. An example of this broader strategic context which could be incorporated in Section 4 of the Plan is the key guiding principles identified in “An Overview of WSUD in Australia’ (Tony Wong 2006).

12. Generally project assessment needs to include comparative material to understand where the CoPP is relative to other municipalities. Most metropolitan Councils are now in regional carbon and water related collaborative alliances which provide this arena for comparison and cooperation.

13. What Council evaluation has been done for WSUD projects to date? We note the comment in EDAW that while CoPP has implemented a range of projects much of it has been demonstrative and ad hoc in its implementation (EDAW pg 13). An

annual report detailing completed WSUD projects and evaluating their effectiveness would be useful.

14. Significant variations in costing of stormwater treatment proposals identified in consultants reports primarily depend on type of scheme and location but also selection of material and cost recovery period. These variations indicate the need for more detailed information and standardisation of cost comparisons.

15. The more recent identification of 30 ML of stormwater capture from Elster Creek by 2012 suggests that the 2020 target could be achieved more quickly. The 2066 target is perhaps too remote and subject to too many uncertainties, including the availability of external funding. Perhaps the 2066 target is most useful in providing one route for achieving best practice stormwater targets against which alternative scenarios with a range of budgets and projects can be assessed. It is apparent however that more detailed work is needed on options for reaching the 2020 target.

16. More attention is also required on the question of how the CoPP community can be brought into the important discussion now needed as to whether or not the 2066 scenario and its associated budget is the target which our community should select and on what basis.

17. The community target for 2020 of a 50% reduction in water use per capita appears to be aspirational, and the Draft Plan does not show how this could be achieved. Given the availability of desalinated water from 2012, it is evident that water restrictions will be loosened and it may be not be possible to achieve these reductions, especially with for-profit companies encouraging greater use of water. We think that this target, originally adopted in 2007, may need reexamination.

18. The DSE Water Augmentation Plan provides material on the impact of State policies and models the linkages between climate change, government policy on water restrictions and the impact of the desalination plant. This information on water costing and its effects on consumption should be incorporated into the final Water Plan.

19. The complexity of the interaction between issues of drainage and availability of water to street trees needs to be taken into account. For example, repairing damaged drains and resetting bluestones programs routinely undertaken by the Council may restrict the amount of water available to street trees, by reducing ground seepage.

20. We understand that Council has established both a Water Taskforce and a WSUD Technical Group. A formal mechanism for review of WSUD issues is recommended for referral by the SECRC, Councillors and the general community. Such a mechanism could be developed and applied at a local catchment level.

21. As has been pointed out, CoPP is not connected to any regional or local government alliances with a primary focus on carbon mitigation and reduction issues. A number of these alliances also address water issues on a regional and catchments basis. Such linkages are of increasing importance in the development of coordinated responses to shared challenges. As the coastline issues assume more importance in Port Phillip, we suggest the Council consider joining the South Eastern Councils Climate Change Alliance, as proposed last year by the Port Phillip Environment Working Group. This association includes Bayside and the other Councils on the eastern side of Port Phillip Bay.

22. Additionally there is a need for Council to advocate with the State Government and the Building Control Act Board to require compliance with existing WSUD standards for all new developments and to build infrastructure capacity by requiring duel water piping, water loop technology and separate water metering in apartment blocks.

23. The final Water Plan needs to include a strategy setting out how CoPP intends to institutionalise the Plan, including decision –making framework and criteria against which to assess all relevant CoPP projects and programs, and an annual report on progress.

24. The Council is embarking on a major process of community education on these issues. As described in earlier sections of this response, we are concerned that the information being provided to the community is not sufficiently accessible to elicit an informed community response.

25. We believe more than one option should be presented to residents and community, given what is at stake. We think that a different model of decision making should be used in cases like this, where long-term infrastructure issues are under consideration involving large expenditures and having significant long-term implications for community amenity and wellbeing. We think that greater community education and dialogue is needed prior to the development of detailed cost benefit analysis which could then lead to the Benefits Model process described in Section 13.

26. Critical paths need to be identified to establish the timing for the planning and execution of the work required to be done over the next say 10 to 30 years. We believe it will be necessary for strategies to be developed across a range of climate change risks and then have all stakeholders consider the issues involved and vote to set budgets that reflect community concerns for these differing issues.

27. Council will need to address all expenditure items and to question whether existing policies are still appropriate in this new environment.

28. Tailored reports are the best way to get these messages across, but these need to address the different stakeholders and be written to suit. We believe that it is important to present different versions of these documents, directed to ratepayers, residents, Councillors, Council management and staff, and special interest groups.

29. This benefits / value model should be related to what the key stakeholders believe are the benefits to our broad community. This model should be related to the levels of service targets that describe the likely outcomes for each project or stage of a project, e.g., will ensure street trees are capable of surviving the 2030 climate predictions.

 

Appendices Appendix 1- Geoff Parr-Smith contribution to submission: Comments on Draft City of Port Phillip Water Plan, version of 14 December 2009 Comments Relating to Document Presentation In many respects this is a very difficult document to read and absorb; indeed, I wonder whether the general community will make much sense of it at all. The subject matter itself is complex and technical, and therefore a well ordered document structure and simple, transparent language is needed. Improvements are needed in both areas. Noticeably, chapters 3 and 4 are much easier to read than the initial two chapters. Who is the target audience? The target audiences for different parts of the plan would be as follows: Councillors, Executive: Executive Summary Introductions, Strategy General community: Introduction, Approach, Strategies Officers and contractors implementing: strategies, actions

External stakeholders and funding sources. The latter two of these audiences seems the best serviced by the plan.

• Executive summary: works fairly well, but needs a fuller set of actions, so that executive readers is not have to dive into the action tables to find out what is really going to happen.

• Introduction: difficult to read, and some important things are missing. • Current approach: detailed and not easy to read, and some important thing seen to

be missing • Strategy: lacks a single clear overall Vision Statement. There is no statement of

priorities. • Actions: written in fairly general terms, and could probably be more specific and

directly worded in many places. Examples of works that are needed, or similar works completed, would be useful.

Note that well after the Draft Plan was circulated for comment, a glossy document with the same title has been produced. It is a commentary on the plan, rather than the Plan itself. However, its text has been well written and carefully edited and some of its contents may provide useful wordings for inclusion in the Plan itself. Document structure A good document flows well -- the thing you expect to read next, comes next. In this document I found often that the thing I expected next wasn't there, and so I wondered whether the document was lacking important sections and information. However, this information turned up later, suggesting that the section order needs to be given further thought. Clarity of language Often the language in the document, particularly in Chapters1 and 2, is unnecessarily bureaucratic and technical, and is sometimes just plain clumsy. To give an example of this I have rewritten Section 1.1, on the basis that it uses the same information (which may not in future be the case), but trying to use clear and simple language. The use of some terminology and wordings needs to be clarified; for instance, sometimes the term Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is used when in fact Integrated Water Management (IWM) is intended. The whole of the plan would benefit from review by a technical editor familiar with this type of public and semi-technical environment document. Strategic emphasis The strategic emphasis of the plan needs to be explained, otherwise the plan will appear unnecessary general to an audience not familiar with it. However in places the document is also written in terms that seem to be too general, and more of an emphasis on the specific would be useful. This could be done by giving concrete examples of the general principles that are discussed. The fact that the plan is also something of a first stage also needs to be

explained, emphasising that one of the immediate actions is to develop a capital program to deliver storm water harvesting projects to open space, and that there are other similar planning processes to follow. It would also assist to place the Plan in its overall context in the environmental strategy work being undertaken by the City of Port Phillip. [Outside Council and the Committee, in the general community, the most common comment I receive about Council’s environmental programs is the lack of any obvious Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Mitigation strategy or activity. While at Committee level we know this work is listed to be undertaken in the near future, documents on other aspects of climate management would be more readily acceptable in public if their relationship to the proposed Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Mitigation strategy was set out clearly.] The A3 ‘map’ diagram showing Council's overall sustainability strategy could usefully be included. How the plan was prepared A section is needed (as a new Section 1.2) describing how the plan was prepared. We found that this plan was nearly impossible to understand, until one realises its interrelationship with: DSE Melbourne Water Augmentation Report EDAW report "City of port Phillip Integrate Water Management Strategy" IMAP report (***full title)

Cardno / Grogan Richards report "Open Space Water Management Plan City of Port Phillip"

Port Phillip WSUD guidelines Elsternwick Park Sustainable Water Management strategy ( City of Bayside).

A section setting out these reports, their relationship to this plan and the process by which the plan was generated would assist the reader to understand the origins of the plan and therefore where it is coming from in its approach and attitude. Full Internet references to the location of these documents on Council's website should also be given, together with the suggestion that if a full understanding of the City's water management processes is desired, then it is essential to look at these documents. Referencing Unfortunately there are many referencing problems in the document, including reference made to documents not in the bibliography, documents incorrectly referenced, and references not clearly and correctly identifying the documents intended. The plan should not have been released until these problems were fixed. Example of a rewritten Section 1.1 1.1 The need for Integrated Water Management This Plan sets out an integrated water management strategy for the City of Port Phillip through to the year 2020. It provides direction has to how all types of water (mains water, urban run-off, sewage, drainage, rivers passing through the City, and ground water) will be managed in a combined fashion to achieve the best possible community, environmental and economic outcomes. Melbourne's water supply has traditionally relied upon protected catchments supplying water to reservoirs are the north and east of the city. This system has grown as the city has expand. It is entirely dependent on rainfall. However, after 10 years of drought, Melbourne's reservoir levels and rivers are close to all-time lows. Water restrictions have been in place during dry periods over the last 40 years, and have become increasingly severe since 2005. Currently a desalination plant is being developed to supply up to 150,000 million litres of water to Melbourne and other regional centres. This is a response to drought and increased growth, and will meet current urban water requirements. However, Melbourne's population is forecast to grow to 5 million by 2026. Further growth in the water supply system will be needed to support this population. By using water restrictions, Melbourne has reduced its water use significantly, but this has

had negative impacts on our trees, open space and recreational areas. Restrictions are likely to continue or increase. Therefore the city must find ways to provide adequate water supplies to open space areas. This can be done by developing permanent water supply solutions based on efficient and diversified water supply management. This can benefit all aspects of asset management and environmental protection, providing benefits throughout the community. Water quality is also important, and vulnerable. Most of Melbourne's (and all of the City of Port Phillip's) runoff goes into Port Phillip Bay. This runoff carries heavy pollutant loads. Port Phillip Bay is an enclosed water body with a very small opening to the sea. A CSIRO study has shown that nutrient levels are elevated in the Bay as a result of urban run-off. Action to reduce nutrient levels, particularly nitrogen, is needed to prevent algal blooms, to protect the Bay's ecological health and its amenity for community and recreation uses. The City of Port Phillip has a long frontage to the Bay and therefore has a substantial interest in protecting its ecological health. It proposes to lead the way in protecting the Bay by minimising sediment, litter and nutrient discharges through its dtrains and along its beaches. We need to protect biodiversity in the Bay, and in surrounding areas. Climate change is an additional concern. We are likely to experience hotter and drier summers. More intense rainfall events and sea level rise are likely to lead to increased risks of flooding, coastal inundation and beach erosion. Together these issues create an imperative to conserve water and protect our water resources. Sustainable and integrated water management is needed. This is based on localised solutions, as well as Melbourne-wide and regional approaches. This plan sets out the City of Port Phillip's response to its water management issues. It is an integrated response proposing Council and community actions in all areas of domestic and public water supply use, disposal and management. It seeks to build a Water Sensitive City, a flexible and adaptable response to water resources, providing green structures and ecosystem services, and building social and institutional capital for sustainable lifestyles.