Part B Rapid Stocktake and Case Studies

Source catchments as water quality
treatment assets: Industry best practice and

triple bottom line cost evaluation of
catchment management practices
Rapid Stocktake and

Case Studies
May 2016
Rapid stocktake
Source catchments as water quality tre atment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of catchment management practices i
Executive Summary
The Rapid Stocktake and Case Studies report is a key deliverable from the “Source catchments as
water quality treatment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of
catchment management practices” project. This review delivers high level assessment of key lessons
from catchment management initiatives and programs in the United States and Australia including
case studies of key issues. Key findings from the Rapid Stocktake includes:
 Most responses to catchment challenges have involved increased expenditure on traditional

engineered or built infrastructure assets.
 Evidence is emerging of the efficiency of complimentary or alternative expenditure on water
supply catchment natural infrastructure.
 Responses to catchment challenges have included management of human and stock activity,
reforestation, river and wetland restoration and floodplain management.
 Drivers for the water industry to invest in catchment management have been regulatory
compliance, adoption of a multiple barrier approach, declining raw water quality driven by
land-use intensification and recognised cost efficiencies.
 Critical success factors for catchment management programs are water industry leadership
and prioritisation, identification of key threats, clear vision, partnerships, viable action
planning, financial and regulatory incentives and monitoring.
 Influencing of internal and external stakeholders is a core requirement.
 Key external stakeholders are policy makers, legislators, regulators, catchment
organisations, industry, landholders, catchment communities and customers.
 Significant barriers to catchment management programs are a bias toward projects which
can be capitalised and included in water pricing, non-inclusion of catchment assets on
formal water provider balance sheets, a dominant engineering culture, lack of knowledge
and long time frames for outcomes.
 Business cases for catchment management depend on the relevant regulatory framework’s
ability to provide service baseline and additionality requirements, allow sufficient flexibility,
deal with third party ownership and identify clear agency responsibility.
 Challenges in preparing business cases include complex biophysical relationships, resource
requirements, uncertainty in terms of risk and consequence modelling, lack of integration
between biophysical and economic modelling, risk aversion and a lack of benefit and cost
quantification and common framework approaches.
 Tools for supporting business case development are risk based assessment, financial
analysis, cost benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, economic impact analysis,
incidence analysis, multiple objective planning and green grey analysis.
 Evidential requirements of business cases will be driven by the degree of associated risk.
 Monitoring of program outcomes is crucial.
 Monitoring of catchment programs is challenging because of varying spatial scales, multiple
influences, the high variability of natural systems, time lag effects, contested definitions of
success and the impact of climactic events.
Rapid stocktake
Source catchments as water quality tre atment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of catchment management practices ii
Contents
Contents iii
1 Introduction 5
2 Source catchments 6
2.1 Key terms 6
2.2 The scope of source catchment management activities 8
3 Water industry drivers for source catchment management 14
4 Critical catchment management program success factors 16

4.1 Critical success factors 16
4.2 Catchment management frameworks 17
4.3 Stakeholder participation 18
5 Critical barriers to catchment management implementation 21
6 Building the business case 22
7 Monitoring and evaluating catchment intervention outcomes 28
8 Summary of key findings and next steps 30
9 Case studies 30
Engaging with customers about catchments 30

Landuse planning in open catchments 37
Source catchment legislation in the US and Australia 42
Bibliography 53
Attachment A Investment drivers evidence base 58
Attachment B Statutory and executive order requirements for water quality 60
Attachment C NRM MERI Framework 70
Rapid stocktake
Source catchments as water quality tre atment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of catchment management practices iii
Tables
Table 1. Green and grey infrastructure solutions for catchment management .................................. 9
Table 2. Drivers of water source catchment management investment ............................................. 14
Table 3. Strategies for successful source water protection programs ............................................... 16
Table 4. Water source catchment protection and the importance of influencing key decision
makers and communities of practice – An influence matrix. ..................................................... 20
Table 5. Tools in use to support a source catchment protection business case .................................. 24
Table 6. Tiered process of risk assessment ........................................................................................... 26
Table 7. Summary of key findings of the rapid stocktake review ...................................................... 30
Table 2: Catchment summary .............................................................................................................. 41
Overview of WSAA
WSAA is the industry body that supports the Australian Urban Water Industry. WSAA members
provide water and wastewater services to over 20 million Australians and many of Australia's largest
industrial and commercial enterprises. The Association facilitates collaboration, knowledge sharing,
networking and cooperation within the urban water industry. It is proud of the collegiate attitude of
its members, which has led to industry-wide approaches to national water issues. WSAA can
demonstrate success in the standardisation of industry performance monitoring and benchmarking,
as well as many research outcomes of national significance. The Executive of the Association retains
strong links with policy-makers and legislative bodies and their influencers, to monitor emerging
issues of importance to the urban water industry. WSAA is regularly consulted and its advice sought
by decision makers when developing strategic directions for the water industry.
Disclaimer
This Report is issued by the Water Services Association of Australia Limited on the understanding
that The Water Services Association of Australia Limited and individual contributors are not
responsible for the results of any action taken on the basis of information in this Report, nor for any
errors or omissions.
Copyright
This document is copyrighted. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no
part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically
or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of the Water Services
Association of Australia Limited. © Water Services Association of Australia Limited, 2016 ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED ISBN 1 92076703 3
Rapid stocktake
Source catchments as water quality tre atment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of catchment management practices iv
1 Introduction
This Rapid Stocktake and Case Studies document forms part of the toolkit for the Water Services
Association of Australia and the Water Research Foundation project Source catchments as water
quality treatment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of catchment
management practices. The project aims to develop a new best practice standard for source
catchment protection and management investment. For a summary of the project outputs, please
refer to the Synthesis Report document.
The central element of this project is the Catchment Management Investment Standard (CMIS). The
CMIS provides users with a summary of the key steps and practices that need to be completed to
develop a robust and evidence based investment in source catchment management activities as a
viable alternative to more capital intensive (traditional investments).
The CMIS was informed by this Rapid Stocktake. This review delivers a high level assessment of key
lessons from catchment management initiatives and programs in the United States and Australia
including case studies of key issues. The Rapid Stocktake focussed on source catchment
management in impaired multi-use catchments, and catchments that were expected to inform the
development of the CMIS for this project. Information is drawn from published documentation on
source catchment management schemes, initiatives and programs, and, where appropriate,
conversations with participants involved in developing the source catchment management policies
and frameworks sitting behind them, and managers responsible for delivering programs. This report
examines the following questions:
General What are the key attributes of a successful catchment management program, the key
challenges and the key traits suggesting failure will occur?
What catchment management frameworks have a high success rate, and what are the success
criteria?
Business case What are the drivers for investment in successful catchment management programs?
What are the different institutional context and regulatory requirements to make a business case
for catchment investment?
What are the key ingredients for business case success?
What tools were used/needed to provide a cost-benefit analysis?
Implementation What are the essential components needed to achieve the desired target level of
implementation?
What are the most common policy tools that have supported (successful) implementation?
Effectiveness Where and when are utilities required to evaluate or validate the effectiveness of catchment
management approaches (including treatment measures and controls)? What is the water
treatment plant context for these catchments (downstream controls)? How reliable are these
approaches at managing hazards and how resilient are the approaches to climatic extremes?
How was effectiveness evaluated? Where was it executed successfully? What were the
implications of the results?
Rapid stocktake
Source catchments as water quality tre atment assets: Industry best practice and triple bottom line cost evaluation of catchment management practices 5
2 Source catchments
The language of source catchment management differs across jurisdictions and people working in
source catchment management. To provide a common basis for understanding, in this section we
define key terms and what we see as the scope of source catchment management activities.
2.1 Key terms
Catchment is a term used to describe land areas that drain into a river basin, reservoir or replenish
an aquifer. The term watershed used in the American context provides basically the same meaning.
The term catchment is used predominantly in this report, except in the US context e.g. US elements
of case studies.
A 2010 paper by Water Quality Research Australia Managing Catchments as Business Assets
(McInnes et al., 2010) identified a number of services provided by catchments:
 catchments (like other components of infrastructure) provide a suite of services that are
essential for economic production and consumption and are required for society to prosper
 water services in particular are important (harvesting, delivery of water through streams,
attenuation of pollutants and floodwaters)
 these services typically yield extremely high economic values for downstream users, because
they underpin water supply quantity/quality and prolong the lifetime and productivity of
infrastructure
 managing catchments for their water services is frequently a far more cost-effective option
than employing artificial technologies or taking mitigative measures when these essential
functions are lost through environmental degradation.
Source water is untreated water from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs or aquifers that supplies the
public with water for all kinds of uses, including water for drinking (drinking water systems and
private wells), recreation and the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. The land area that provides
this source water is the source catchment.
The protection of this source water, in terms of its quality, quantity, timing of flows and associated
benefits at the water’s source, is source water protection (Gartner et al. 2013). Another term used
is Public Drinking Water Source Areas, which include underground water pollution control areas,
water reserves and catchment areas.
A waterbody (i.e. stream reaches, lakes, waterbody segments) with chronic or recurring monitored
violations of the applicable numeric and/or narrative water quality criteria is referred to as impaired
water.
Where source water is to be used for drinking, the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG)
(NHMRC/NRMMC, 2011) and the US standards established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
recommend a multiple barrier (or multi-barrier) catchment-to-customer approach to providing safe
drinking water. The multiple barrier approach refers to the various components in the train of
providing safe drinking water to the customer—from the source (whether ground or surface water),
to a water treatment facility, through a distribution systems, and ultimately to the customer at the
tap (Gartner et al. 2013). This proactive approach means that if one barrier fails, the effective
Rapid stocktake
operation of other barriers will ensure safe drinking water is maintained throughout the water
supply. Protection and management of the source catchment is the first barrier in protecting water
quality; subsequent barriers include water storage, treatment and disinfection.
Built infrastructure, which refers to the human-engineered infrastructure for source water
resources such as treatment plants and dams, undoubtedly plays a critical role in water storage and
treatment. Natural infrastructure, which refers to the strategic use of networks of natural lands,
working landscapes, and other open spaces to conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide
associated benefits to human populations, can be a cost-effective component of an integrated
system to provide clean drinking water. Forests, wetlands, riparian buffers, and other natural
elements on the landscape can comprise natural infrastructure when strategically used and
managed to provide services for communities, such as through land acquisition and conservation
easements, low-impact development, conservation practices on agricultural and forest lands, and
even beaver dams. As such, natural infrastructure is commonly referred to as “watershed
protection,” “land conservation,” or several other more traditional terms. Natural infrastructure is
also sometimes referred to as “green infrastructure”—although the latter term is also used more
broadly for things such as rain gardens or even water meters and energy efficient equipment
(Gartner et al. 2013).
Investment Management Standard is a best-practice approach applied over the life of an

investment that aims to reduce the risk of investment failure, provide greater value-for-money and
drive better outcomes. It is designed to enable the investor to shape and control investments
throughout their lifecycle.
In investment, the base case is a realistic option that involves the minimum expenditure to sustain
existing standards of service delivery or to achieve previously agreed minimum service standards.
Therefore, the base case does not always mean ‘do nothing’; rather it is the minimum essential
expenditure option (e.g. carrying out obligatory works to meet safety and health regulations).
Options analysis is a process in which a range of options (both asset and non-asset) are evaluated.
The most cost-effective options are then selected for more detailed evaluation through a business
case.
Lifecycle cost is the total cost of an item or system over its full life. It includes the cost of
development, production, ownership (operation, maintenance, support), and disposal, if applicable.
Scenario analysis is a procedure for providing the decision-maker with some information about the
effect of risks and uncertainties on an investment. In a scenario analysis, a set of critical parameters
and assumptions that define a particular scenario are identified and varied to reflect a best-case and
a worst-case scenario.
Social benefit is the estimated direct increase in the welfare of society from an economic action. It is
the sum of the benefit to the agent performing the action, plus the benefit accruing to society as a
result of the action.
Social cost is the estimated direct total cost to society of an economic activity. It is the sum of the
opportunity costs of the resources used by the agent carrying out the activity, plus any additional
costs imposed on society from the activity.
Rapid stocktake
2.2 The scope of source catchment management activities
For this review, source catchment management activities are discussed in terms of practices that
impact, or may impact, on source water quality and quantity as it relates to the supply of safe
drinking water.
Source catchment management practice has rapidly advanced over the past three decades, driven
by a need to protect and enhance source water that has a high quality and well-regulated flow, as
well as protect rural landscapes and other receiving environments from water quality and quantity
impacts. There is general agreement that treatment cost efficiencies can be achieved if the source
water catchments are either fully protected from human activities and/or water quality risks are
actively mitigated.
The most common response to source catchment management challenges has been to increase
investment in (conventional) built infrastructure, such as dams, levees, and water treatment plants,
and to expand sewerage networks (UNEP, 2014). However, there is an increasing body of evidence
that natural (or green) infrastructure can “…reduce or avoid costs and enhance water services and
security, serving alongside necessary built infrastructure components as part of an integrated system
to cost-effectively deliver safe drinking water…” (Gartner et al., 2013). This view is supported by
recent work in the US which indicates that catchment protection measures (forested watershed
protection) are increasingly becoming cost effective (WRF 2015).
Table 1 provides an overview of built and natural infrastructure options (and their interaction) for
water catchment management. All of the solutions provided in Table 1 (excluding ‘Coastal flood
(storm) control’ and solutions that relate to urban settings (e.g. Green spaces, Permeable pavements
and Green roofs)) are relevant source catchment management activities.
Rapid stocktake
Table 1. Green and grey infrastructure solutions for catchment management
(UNEP, 2014) Solutions that consist of built or ‘grey’ elements that interact with natural features and seek to enhance their
water-related ecosystem services.
Rapid stocktake
The following sections provide a brief summary of source catchment management activities ‒ their
benefits, co-benefits and costs ‒ adapted primarily from UNEP (2014) and Gartner et al. (2013). This
information is intended to provide some context for the following sections of this report; thus it is
intentionally comprehensive but not exhaustive.
Exclusion zones and general land management

Many drinking water catchments are designated no-go areas for people and stock. NSW, Victoria
and South Australia have, in a relatively limited number of cases, regulation-based exclusion zones
applied around dams where no development is permitted and public access is restricted. The
majority of dams have a significant level of public access. Many US municipalities’ regulation
requires setbacks and buffers between development areas and water bodies in source catchments.
Whilst some recreational/ecotourism benefits may be lost with the creation of exclusion zones,
some low impact activities (such as hiking, land-based fishing, bird watching) may not.
Land managers undertake general land management activities to maintain catchment health, such
as fire break establishment and maintenance, weed and feral animal management, erosion control
works, etc.
Benefits of exclusion zones Co-Benefits Costs

Water purification  Carbon sinks Social perception
 Prohibiting human and stock activity within a  Pollination  Lost opportunity for some
catchment area reduces litter and other pollutants. recreational or ecotourism
 Improved air benefits.
Soil erosion control quality
 Prohibiting human and stock activity within a Economic
 Preserve
catchment area reduces impacts on banks and  Fencing, signage and enforcement
biodiversity
erosion. costs
 Creating buffers that can act as natural treatment  Ongoing maintenance and
systems which prevents the natural filter system monitoring.
being compromised and saving built infrastructure
(treatment) costs
Native vegetation or forest conservation; native revegetation efforts or (re-) afforestation

The establishment of a forest on lands that had no previous forest cover (afforestation), the
re-establishment of a forest on lands with a history of forest cover (reafforestation), and the
maintenance of forests on lands that would otherwise be developed is an important component of
source catchment protection.
Benefits of forests Co-Benefits Costs

Flood control  Carbon sinks Water supply
 Forest areas in upper catchment areas can reduce  Pollination  Intensive reafforestation,
occurrence and intensity of floods by: afforestation or native vegetation
 Improved air establishment may reduce the
− intercepting rainfall and increasing quality local total annual runoff and
infiltration‒soils in forest areas are able to
 Regulate local groundwater recharge.
Rapid stocktake
store more water and release water climate (including Economic
through evaporation cooling)  Purchase of land
− reducing soil erosion ‒ eroded soil has a  Preserve  If not via natural regeneration,
diminished water storage/retention biodiversity purchase of seeds/saplings and
capacity.  Tourism and labour for tree planting
recreation  Ongoing maintenance.
Water purification
 Forests improve water quality by reducing sediment  Opportunities for Water supply and quality regulation
and pollutants in waterways (by trapping/filtering agroforestry and  Time-lag for reafforestation and
the pollutants). silvopastoral
afforestation to provide benefits
systems (i.e. trees to grow)
Soil erosion control
 Reducing soil erosion and stabilising slopes ‒ trees  Exposure to risks that may
help to stabilise slopes and reduce frequency of compromise the investment‒e.g.
landslides, mudflows and avalanches. wildfires, pests and diseases,
change in rainfall (climate change).
Water temperature control
 Forests provide shade to streams and help to
mitigate thermal pollution.
Reconnecting rivers to floodplains

Setback levees
Man-made levees are generally constructed to maximise the use of surrounding lands (by preventing
the land from inundation in times of flood). However, a levee restricts the natural area of the
floodplain, which benefits from periodic connections with the river. Also, if a levee is constructed too
close to the edge of a river channel (greatly narrowing the river channel), a bottleneck effect may (i)
cause waters to back up and cause flooding, and (ii) expose the levee and downstream areas to
higher velocity water during times of flood.
Removing levees or moving levees back away from the channel (called a setback levee) can alleviate
these problems.
Flood bypasses
A flood bypass is a portion of land that was once part of the river’s floodplain and has been set aside
to receive floodwaters during major flood events. It works by increasing the area available to move
floodwaters safely through a particular stretch of river (i.e. conveyance) and/or by detaining or
storing a portion of the floodwater during a major flood event (i.e. known as ‘peak shaving’).
Floodplain restoration
Flood impact studies in certain communities are examining the cost/benefit analysis of certain
floodplain restoration projects. The cost savings in avoided damages can be many times higher than
the cost of the project itself (David Warne, pers. comm.).
Rapid stocktake
Benefits of reconnecting rivers to floodplains Co-Benefits Costs
Water regulation  More room for Economic
 Longer time period inundation may recharge natural channel  Construction works
groundwater, resulting in a ‘groundwater bank’ meander
 Purchase of title or easements
during drought.  Allows floodplain
 Lost opportunity of land that is
Flood control habitats to be
created now periodically inundated
 Increases the river channel’s capacity for carrying (although some land areas may
floodwaters.  Biodiversity still be useable).
 Flow of water over floodplains is generally shallower habitats
and slower than rivers.  Pollination
 Reduced levee maintenance costs (i.e. levee  Recreational and
exposed to lower velocity water). aesthetic value
Water purification  Increase
 Improved water quality downstream via: resilience to
climate change
− reduced erosion impacts
− sediment transported with floodwaters  Income from
(and also nutrients such as phosphorus hunting, fishing,
which are largely adsorbed to sediment farming, etc.
particles) deposited on the (slower)  Avoided cost of
floodplain flood damage to
− biogeochemical processes within floodplain roads, bridges,
wetland (e.g. denitrification) can reduce buildings
nitrogen loads in river water.
Wetlands restoration and conservation, and wetlands construction

Source catchment protection may include the protection of an existing wetland (wetland
conservation), the restoral of a wetland’s natural functions (wetland restoration), and/or the
artificial creation of a wetland that aims to mimic the hydrological processes of a natural wetland
(wetland construction).
Wetland conservation is ideal; but natural wetlands that have been drained or converted to other
uses can often be restored, as they generally retain the characteristics of soil and hydraulics that
were there before (UNEP, 2014).
Constructed wetlands are often designed to supplement or substitute conventional water treatment
plants, and usually appear as a shallow depression with dense and diverse vegetation cover.
Benefits of wetlands Co-Benefits Costs

Water quantity regulation  Recreational, Health
 Wetlands are able to store large amounts of water, aesthetic and  Large areas of standing water can
and release it slowly, making them natural health value form habitats for the spread of
regulators of water quantity during:  Support vector-borne diseases (especially
livelihoods (e.g. in tropics).
− droughts (by acting as retention basis and
providing a slow release of stored water) fisheries and Economic
tourism)  Vary depending on the location
− floods (by slowing flood waters and
 Biodiversity and level of degradation
Rapid stocktake
Benefits of wetlands Co-Benefits Costs
minimising potential impacts downstream). habitat  Purchase of land
Water purification  Pollination  Any foregone economic
 Natural ability to reduce nutrients and some  Increase opportunity to develop the land
pollutants in water, as well as trap sediments for resilience to  Labour and equipment for physical
improved water quality. climate change works and replanting
 impacts
In some instances the generation of organic material  Maintenance costs.
from wetlands has been known to cause water  Carbon storage
 Potential additional treatment
supply issue including taste, odour and colour. and
issues
sequestration
(e.g. peatlands)
Riparian buffers
Riparian buffers‒i.e. the protection of vegetated areas adjacent to rivers, creeks and other
waterways to act as a buffer from the impacts of surrounding land uses‒is an important source
catchment protection practice and is often required under water legislation.
Benefits of riparian buffers Co-Benefits Costs

Flood control  Maintain soil Water supply and quality regulation
 Absorb water and slow down runoff during flood productivity on  Exposure to risks (in particular
events, reducing peak flows. nearby land (by during droughts) that may reduce
stabilising soils) benefits‒e.g. pests and diseases,
Water purification
 Biodiversity wildfires.
 Improve water quality, by reducing sediments and
pollutants including a reduction of pathogens habitat and Water purification
entering waterways movement  Excess dead leaves and debris
corridors entering the waterway can make
 Falling leaves and debris provides food for aquatic
species (which may provide water quality benefits).  Pollination the water toxic to fish and aquatic
species (e.g. if the organic matter
Water temperature control  Offer shade and
becomes hypoxic, with decreased
weather
 Provide shade to streams and help to mitigate pH and high concentrations of
(including wind)
thermal pollution. tannin and lignin)
protection
 Reduces temperature fluctuations, which is an  Good design is critical ‒ water
 Aesthetics and
important factor for the survival of many aquatic quality benefits depend on the
recreation
species. width, cover and longitudinal
 Reduces levels of light, to protect invertebrate connection of buffers relative to
species composition (e.g. high light levels can pollution sources.
increase in-stream primary production and change Economic
composition).  Purchase of land (and any
 Reduces frequency of algal blooms. foregone economic opportunity to
develop the land)
 If not via natural regeneration,
purchase of seeds/saplings and
labour for tree planting
 Ongoing maintenance and
monitoring.
While the technical aspects of source catchment management are generally well documented, the
regulatory, institutional and landscape context (which is intrinsically linked to the success or failure
of catchment initiatives) and drivers is often not well described and considered in the role of
catchment intervention success or failure.
Rapid stocktake
3 Water industry drivers for source catchment management
We define the ‘drivers’ for water source catchment management as the main factors which cause
source catchment management to be implemented. Table 2 summarises the main drivers of water
source catchment management investment identified through the rapid stocktake review.
Attachment A summarises examples of cost effectiveness drivers.
Table 2. Drivers of water source catchment management investment
Driver Description
Regulatory This is a core driver requirement. Minimum regulatory requirement(s) that codify catchment
requirements management as a key driver for water source protection need to be in place. A significant difference
between Australia and the US is the existence of the US Federal Clean Water Act and other heads of
power to implement and enforce source protection. Regulatory compliance and pre-compliance are
key drivers identified for business, local government, state/provincial government and drinking water
utilities in the US (WRF 2015, Bennett and Carroll, 2014)).
Source water protection regulations should be formulated in a way that ensures their effective
implementation and enforcement. Regulations must clearly identify objectives of source water
protection – drinking water protection, recreation, the maintenance of aquatic and land ecosystems,
etc.
Clear and applicable numeric and/or narrative water quality criteria should support the regulatory
requirements.
Note that the business case for source catchment investments beyond minimum regulatory
requirements needs to prove additionality—that is, net beneficial impacts over and above the
regulatory minimum requirement for source management protection (Mulligan, 2013).
Multiple-barrier This is a core driver. Water management organisations have long recognised the importance of a
approach multiple barrier, risk management approach to protecting drinking water quality from contaminants
(Deere et al., 2008).
The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2011) (ADWG) indicate that the most important barrier in
water quality protection is the effective protection of the source or catchment. Effective source
protection can mitigate significant cost and reliance on fallible downstream barriers such as water
treatment and disinfection (Ford, 2008). Source water protection can therefore also play a highly
significant role in relation to the maintenance of appropriate public health standards.
The concept of water safety planning, i.e. greater emphasis on source catchment as the first step in
ensuring safe drinking-water, is to select and protect reliable, high quality source water, and is a key
driver supporting action.
Evidence that This is a core driver. There is evidence that technological solutions (engineered water treatment) are
built not a panacea. Prevention of contamination provides greater surety than the removal of
infrastructure is contaminants. No single barrier is completely effective, technological solutions cannot be solely
not infallible relied upon and need to be complemented by catchment management initiatives.
For example, management of the water supply catchments of Sydney changed significantly after the
1997 Royal Commission into the Cryptosporidium and Giardia crisis. The Commission found that
Sydney’s drinking water catchments were seriously compromised, that a modern water treatment
plant was not a substitute for proper catchment management, and that a strong and effective
response was required (Warner, 2013).
Comprehensive This is a supporting driver. There must be a clear, overarching, structured management framework.
overarching The strategy should confirm the importance of water source protection and clearly articulate
strategy and management objectives, obligations and responsibilities of key parties managing and impacting on
management water sources.
framework The strategy and management framework should be integrated and align the source water
management framework into high priority initiatives such as stormwater management and land
conservation. The strategy must be developed and supported across agencies, levels of Government
(federal, state, local) and stakeholders involved in catchment management.
Development of risk plans, catchment management plans and other more specific land management
and maintenance plans in isolation is a driver, which can become critical in open catchments with
high levels of private land ownership.
Rapid stocktake
Driver Description
Critical landscape, This is an enabling driver. There is clear evidence that development and land use pressures are
development and placing water quality requirements at risk (and that built infrastructure is inadequate).
property right Many water authorities face development pressures within their source areas (TPL, 2004). Rapid
pressures urbanisation and associated peri urban development add to the existing pressures on catchments
and significantly increase risks to raw water quality. Open catchments are particularly exposed to this
risk. For example, the open catchments servicing the cities of Geelong, Ballarat and Melton in
Victoria include existing agricultural and urban areas and are under increasing pressure from further
development.
An assessment of catchment risks to potable water supplies (Water Ecoscience, 2002) found that the
predominant hazards were found to be:
 human habitation in the catchment – including towns and settlements
 agricultural runoff – due to poor streamside vegetation and lack of fencing to prevent stock
access
 potential for chemical spills.
Water authorities relying on open catchments are facing increasing treatment challenges that may
be more effectively managed through catchment protection and risk mitigation programs. New
contaminants are emerging that suppliers may not be prepared to test for or treat. Spikes in
contaminant loads due to storms and flooding make treatment more challenging and constantly
changing standards and regulations regarding new contaminants are being implemented even
though those contaminants may have been present in the water long before they were identified as
threats to public health (TPL, 2004). The risks of emerging pathogens such as Hepatitis E, which are
resistant to chlorine and disinfection, have no medical treatment and are highly infectious are being
highlighted in the literature. Additionally, increasing detection technologies are highlighting risks to
water supplies from chemicals, metals and pharmaceuticals (TPL, 2004).
Cost effective This is an enabling driver. Clear evidence that the avoided water treatment costs of built
infrastructure (variable and/or fixed) exceed the costs of catchment management actions needed to
avoid the treatment costs is required.
Significant Evidence and a compelling case that there is substantial economic value at risk. For substantial
economic value at investments to mobilise—and be worthwhile economically—there also needs to be real economic
risk value tied to current or emerging water-related issues in a catchment.
Certainty of This is an enabling driver. There is relatively high certainty about how catchment management
catchment actions will impact on source water quality – i.e. when cause-effect relationships exist.
management Proving this is easier if there is low spatial variability across the source catchment, or the implications
outcomes of spatial variability on source water quality are well understood. Spatial variability in land use,
development pressures, climate, soil, etc. can pose challenges for clearly demonstrating the case.
There is variability across and within catchments in the magnitude of water resources impact given
land cover and/or land management practice (Freeman et al., 2013).
Catchment This point is related to certainty. There is a stronger driver for catchment management investments if
management the benefits will occur within a shorter (say 5 year) timeframe. This is a key challenge as many
benefits are catchment actions take years to become effective, and often become more effective over time
frontloaded (Warner, 2013).
Alignment of costs This is an enabling driver. There is alignment of economic and/or financial benefits and costs of
incurred and source catchment actions ‒ i.e. where the benefits of source catchment management actions go back
benefits received to the funding organisation in some form.
For example, water utilities may struggle to justify catchment activities on private land because these
activities don’t get added to the implementing agency’s regulated asset base (RAB)/balance sheet.
Catchment organisations may compete for funds and recognition of the impacts and social benefits
of their work.
Social drivers This is an enabling driver. There is a strong community voice calling for improved source catchment
management, and a clear understanding of the issues.
Rapid stocktake
4 Critical catchment management program success factors
4.1 Critical success factors

Several reports have identified critical success factors for (source) catchment programs. Table 3 summarises
the key success factors and commonalities across three main reports ‒ ‘Path to protection - ten strategies for
successful source water protection’ (Ernst & Hart 2005), the Water Research Foundation Report (Sklener et al.,
2012), and the ‘Inquiry into catchment management’ (DEH, 1999).
Table 3. Strategies for successful source water protection programs
Strategy EH WRF DEH

1 Make source water protection a high priority. Articulate the benefits of source Y Y Y
water protection, including financial benefits, and demonstrate how successful
protection can cap or reduce treatment costs over time. Ensure that source
water protection planning and action is important even in the absence of
regulatory requirements to do so, and that water suppliers must become active
leaders in their catchments.
2 Clearly identify the most critical threats to source water and share that Y Y Y
information to involve and motivate a broad constituency (i.e. risk based
approach). Adequately identify the threats to the water supply. Obtain and use
technical data to show where the problems are (i.e. use ‘sound science’ for the
source water assessment and prioritisation analysis).
3 Articulate a clear vision for source water protection, and support it with Y Y
sufficient resources to accomplish the vision. Be sure to target the most
important priorities and those program components which have the greatest
chance for success.
4 Develop a constituency to champion the cause, and provide resources and Y Y Y
technical support to ensure sustainability.
5 Partner with those who have the authority to make change such as elected Y Y Y
officials and agricultural and industry representatives. Have early involvement
of the relevant stakeholders in developing the vision, goals, plan and
implementation of the program.
6 Understand that it takes time to get people to understand and want to address Y
the problem. Understand that it takes people seeing progress and believing in
the cause to keep things moving forward. Source water protection can be a long
and continuous process, so maintain patience and perseverance.
7 Build on and integrate with existing issues and programs, integrating source Y Y
water protection into high priority initiatives such as stormwater management
and land conservation. Coordinate (in particular) with local, state (and where
applicable) (US EPA) authorities who regulate potential sources of
contamination within the source water protection area(s). Add source water
protection goals into existing plans and criteria for Clean Water Act (US) and
other state programs. Encourage drinking water and clean water program
integration and partnering across state programs.
8 Create a viable action plan that guides and motivates implementation. Y Y
Continue to develop and implement partnerships, coordination and
collaboration throughout the development and implementation of the
program.
9 Actively promote successful source water protection efforts to build Y Y
momentum and encourage replication. Study other successful source water
protection programs to learn from their successes and failures.
10 Create financial and regulatory incentives to build commitment of local Y Y Y
stakeholders, especially around multi-jurisdictional or resource-based planning
efforts. Support or create public funding programs broad enough to include
source water protection, and make funding easy to find with one stop shopping
Rapid stocktake
Strategy EH WRF DEH
for water-related funding sources. Develop locally relevant incentives and
removal of disincentives to achieve sustainable land management and adjust
planning objectives.
11 Develop a sustainable source of funding for protection efforts. This may be Y
done through establishing a funding ‘quilt’ – a patchwork of available funding
sources.
12 Use water quality monitoring and other measures of success to sustain Y Y Y
implementation and manage state and local programs. Establish “SMART” goals
(specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely). Facilitate community
based ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure outcomes are identifiable
and strategy is adjusted whenever necessary.
13 Include an ongoing community education and involvement program. Y Y
Source: Ernst and Hart (2005).
Y = the report identified the corresponding strategy as a critical success factors for (source) catchment programs.
EH = Ernst and Hart (2005). WRF = Sklener et al. (2012). DEH = DEH (1999).
4.2 Catchment management frameworks

Edeson (2015) describes the practice of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) in Australia as one
in which consultation is seen as a step in policy development, where a series of documents are
presented to the community and feedback is sought on select questions. The view of stakeholders in
ICM is that they are another resource to be managed, alongside ecosystem function and services,
economic objectives and central policy objectives, and it is still a process that is done to a catchment
by an external body. In contrast Adaptive Co-Management (ACM) is explicitly based on
experimentation and learning to manage uncertainty and complexity. It is described as a bottom up
community led model of resource management, which places resource users and their knowledge at
the centre of resource management. Power sharing and community involvement are the result of
the process. Stakeholders are seen as partners or leaders in the implementation of water
management policy.
Adaptive Co-Management and Integrated Catchment Management have different underlying

assumptions. Edeson (2015) describes ICM as an outcomes based approach that assumes that at
some point it is possible to fully understand a catchment and then develop an approach that shifts it
to a desired end state. ACM is a process focussed approach that sees a catchment as a poorly
definable set of complex relationships, where changes in one part have flow through effects for the
whole catchment. In ACM approaches, management happens by influencing the social and
ecological dynamics of the resource system to foster resilience and behaviour that is sustainable.
Patterson et al. (2013) describes management of non-point pollution in catchments as a wicked

problem in that it is a multi-actor, multi-scalar, dynamic, evolving and contextual problem that is
difficult to manage. They highlight the need to create flexible and responsive social and institutional
arenas that are conducive to enabling the emergence of adaptive responses.
Bohensky et al. (2009) report that the Australian approach to water management has been technical
and managerial, and contrasts this with the European Union Water Directive Framework, which
places much greater emphasis on civil society and public participation to improve water outcomes.
The social learning approach of the European Union aims to create cooperative relationships and
behaviour and new attitudes to the environment. The program stresses the importance of context
and the need to build on established processes and existing networks rather than trying to create
Rapid stocktake
alternative new ones. Working within existing systems increases the potential to integrate the new
with the old, and increases the likelihood that the reforms will be accepted as legitimate. Social
learning for river basin management should not be viewed in isolation, rather it should be seen as
part of a much wider social movement. There is an emphasis on the importance of context.
Implementation in any particular place needs to be based on a detailed understanding of its
specifics. It is necessary to have a wide understanding of options, which can be gained from the
literature and knowledge of efforts elsewhere, but this should be subsumed into plans that are
highly sensitive to place.
The importance of leaders and facilitators was another major theme. For a project to achieve
success it is essential that it be built around key organisers who are highly motivated, technically
competent and committed. The role of these people in building trust and alliances and negotiating
conflicts between stakeholders was reported as crucial.
Working to reduce transaction costs and lengthy procedures was another imperative. Involvement
fatigue is a particularly significant threat given the reliance on volunteers. Australian experience with
community projects also supports this finding (Bohensky et al., 2009). It was recognised that there is
the need for a well thought through understanding of the purpose of stakeholder involvement in
each particular situation. Observing a generic requirement was not enough to make the process
useful or effective. Related to this was the importance of understanding the great variety of
backgrounds, knowledge and reasons why different groups are willing to take part. The need to
engage key stakeholders such as large agencies, which can bring in resources and wider
perspectives, was also stressed.
4.3 Stakeholder participation

A common theme throughout the literature and in the interviews undertaken was the importance of influencing key decision makers and communities of practice
to engender support for water source catchment protection and management.

These case studies are further explored later in this
report.
Rapid stocktake
Table 4 summarises the key findings. Case studies have been developed that explore three of these
critical issues, using examples from both Australian and US contexts:
 Effective landuse planning as a component of managing risks to water quality.

 Legislation related to source water protection at the federal, state and local government
level.
 The need to inform and engage drinking water customers in the production and
management of their water supply.
These case studies are further explored later in this report.
Rapid stocktake
Table 4. Water source catchment protection and the importance of influencing key decision makers and
communities of practice – An influence matrix.
Influence level Why influence?

Politico Policy makers ‒ Successful programs have had a policy champion and high-level policy
economic support to achieve their aims. Establishment of roles, responsibilities and
context lead agencies vital.
Legislators Federal Significant difference between the US and Australia is the existence of the
Federal Clean Water Act and other heads of power to implement and
enforce source protection in the US. Australia does not have an equivalent
State Each State in the Australian context has differing legislative approach to
source protection. Most planning in some areas focused on quantity not
quality. Limited regulatory support for source protection in some states.
Reliance on guidelines with limited statutory impact.
Local Local government identified as a key land use regulator. Wide variety of
engagement identified however it is mostly reactive. Several areas identify
limited influence over planning schemes and development patterns.
Regulators Financial Financial regulators need to be influenced to provide appropriate financial
signals. Currently a Regulated Asset Base and CAPEX bias against source
protection exists.
Health Identified support for multi barrier approach. Establishment of guidelines
needs to be supplemented by risk reduction requirements.
Organisational Board ‒ High level Board support and resourcing required. Most Boards are
context dominated by financial/legal/engineering considerations with few source
protection subject experts at high level.
Executive ‒ Executive must be fully engaged and supportive for program to succeed.
Strong leadership required particularly in relation to expenditure on third
party land or assets with a willingness to embrace innovative solutions and
methods.
Middle ‒ In some organisations there is an opportunity to improve the level of
management understanding within middle management of the potential benefits of
source water protection programs. These programs challenge business as
usual approaches – many decisions needed for successful catchment
management programs will not progress beyond this level in organisations
unless this is addressed.
Staff ‒ Staff across all elements of water businesses need to understand the
importance of source protection and long term planning across all spheres
of operation.
Catchment Catchment ‒ In many catchments, numerous organisations identified with no clear leader
context organisations and competition for funds and recognition. In some instances where no
appropriate organisations exist, water utilities have found it highly
beneficial to support their establishment.
Catchment ‒ Industries operating within water supply catchments can have tremendous
industries influence over producers. Need to engage industry to promote source
protection goals.
Landholders ‒ In open catchments, the majority of on ground works need to occur on
private land.
Community Catchment ‒ Influencing catchment communities to be supportive of source protection
context community programs is vital. Top down approach of water industry identified as barrier
to successful engagement.
Drinking water ‒ Drinking water customers of source catchments need to understand role of
customers catchments, source protection and long term program benefits if long term
success and support is to occur.
Rapid stocktake
5 Critical barriers to catchment management implementation
The broader literature identifies that catchment management and water source protection
programs face a range of barriers to implementation. These barriers include:
 Capital bias: A Capex bias exists in funding decisions that is relevant to catchment
management (OFWAT, 2012). Capex is defined as expenditure on productive capacity and
usually refers to hard assets such as built infrastructure. Catchment programs are usually
classified as Opex (operational) expenditure. Under many regulatory regimes, costing of
water for resale and therefore company incomes are based on regulatory capital value and
companies may be incentivised to expend more on hard capital assets rather than annual
operational expenditures (OFWAT, 2012). Incentives to achieve financing efficiencies
(decreasing Opex) and regulatory capital value growth (increasing Capex) are having an
important influence on business planning and delivery.
 Off-balance sheet bias: Catchments can be regarded as the most important asset in the
water supply business yet in many instances are not included in the financial calculations of
the business. Non-recognition of the catchment as a formal asset is a barrier in that there is
a reluctance to invest in its protection and maintenance in a similar fashion to a hard asset
such as a filtration plant. Often catchments have multiple owners, and expenditure on third
party land to protect water quality further challenges the flexibility and utility of accounting
and financial standards (Bennett and Carroll, 2014; WRF, 2015).
 The engineering culture: Organisational structures in water utilities are dominated by
engineers with limited exposure to and understanding of catchment management issues
(OFWAT, 2012). Engineering solutions provide a well-recognised certainty of outcomes in
terms of water quality, while the results of catchment management are by their nature
uncertain and potentially difficult to quantify to the same extent.
 Knowledge and skill gaps: Many utilities face knowledge gaps among key constituents and
internal decision makers. There is a lack of financial resources or technical knowledge
needed to advance catchment management programs (Gartner et al., 2013). In many
instances, there is a lack of regulatory clarity regarding water utility involvement in
catchment management and confusion over jurisdictional and leadership roles in
catchments (Bennett and Carroll, 2014; WRF, 2015).
 Long and lagged timeframes: The timeframes associated with catchment management are
also a key barrier. Natural infrastructure tends to provide benefits over a very long time
period (decades or longer), whereas man-made capital provides benefits in the near term
(years to decades). Natural infrastructure appreciates in value over a long period of time
whereas built capital depreciates relatively rapidly (Gartner et al., 2013).
Rapid stocktake
6 Building the business case
6.1 Governance and institutional contexts and associated regulatory requirements needed
to get a business case to the table
The regulatory frameworks and property rights arrangements, and to a lesser extent policy, that
govern drinking water quality provide the foundation for source catchment investment decisions. A
list of regulations, policies, property rights and institutional arrangements for drinking water quality
across Australia and the US are summarised at Attachment B. The main points are listed below.
 Regulations provide the baseline for how source catchments must be protected and
managed under Federal/Commonwealth, State, and Local Laws. The business case for source
catchment investments needs to prove additionality—that is, net beneficial impacts over
and above the regulatory minimum requirement for source management protection
(Mulligan, 2013). As previously noted, in Australia, NSW, Victoria and South Australia have
some limited regulation-based exclusion zones applied around dams where no development
is permitted and public access is restricted. Many US municipalities’ regulation requires
setbacks and buffers between development areas and water bodies in source catchments.
Therefore, a business case needs to be additional to this.
 Regulatory flexibility allows a natural infrastructure business case to get to the table. Many
of the regulations governing water resources take a flexible approach and allow the
regulated community (including water utilities and others) to use natural infrastructure to
achieve compliance in ways that reduce cost and may achieve greater environmental
benefits than are possible under a traditional regulatory approach. Where such a flexible
approach is allowed, natural infrastructure approaches can be a cost-effective alternative or
complementary strategy to built infrastructure in achieving compliance (Mulligan, 2013).
 Clearly defined property rights and policy demarcate responsibility for source catchment
management, and the extent to which source catchments are open or closed, can impact on
a business case getting to the table. Most often, source catchments that are characterised
by low development or (recreational) use are often owned and/or managed by Government.
In contrast, source catchments that are not owned by the implementing agency, or only
partially owned, will struggle harder to get a business case to the table, because investments
that occur on private land don’t accrue to the implementing agency’s balance sheet. For
example, the bulk of South Australia’s water supply catchments (90%) are privately owned
and co-managed, and intensively developed. In the US recent work has identified that 86%
of the water utilities who participated in an industry-wide survey owned less than 20% of
the catchment they relied on for water supply (WRF 2015).
 Clear agency responsibility for delivery makes the case easier to get to the table. Multiple
agencies with inconsistent objectives obscure line of site to the business case argument.
In addition to source catchment legislation, water businesses and Government agencies are subject
to statutes and executive orders that require the conduct of specific types of (economic) analyses to
support investments. Many of these directives are potentially relevant for source catchments
program investments, while others target individual projects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2010).Diverse drinking water source protection practices are explained by historical multiple land
use and significant public health events.
Rapid stocktake
6.2 Challenges in preparing a business case
Challenges in preparing the business case include:
 uncertainty around relationships and lack of biophysical production relationships.

Optimistically, even the best models often do not capture 20–40% of variation for annual
prediction (Schmidt & Mulligan, 2013)
 difficulties in estimating the likelihood of occurrence of low probability events. There is
limited understanding of the transport and fate mechanisms which determine the
concentrations and duration of pollutants in the environment (Guice et al., 2009)
 substantial and cross-disciplinary resources needed in the form of both expertise and
personnel hours are still required to rigorously apply the most useful modelling systems and
investment tools
 methods for conducting uncertainty analyses abound and are well developed; however,
there is no standardised set of analysis tools built into modelling systems or even applied in
modelling studies across the board. This is especially the case in risk and multiple objective
studies
 integration between source catchment biophysical and economic systems. Evaluations often
operate at different spatial and temporal scales and use different units of measurement
performance metrics, therefore, alignment is challenging
 evaluation approaches use a number of different economic methods to assess natural
infrastructure, including avoided cost, replacement cost, or project benefits. However, there
is often low transferability of values between sites and issues
 risk aversion and regulations requiring redundancy (i.e. built infrastructure even if natural
infrastructure should be sufficient). Redundancy, or having two or more natural
infrastructure elements included to achieve the same outcome, is one way to reduce risk
and uncertainty in the design of natural infrastructure investment portfolios
 full range of benefits not quantified; full range of costs not quantified
 lack of a common framework and approach makes assembling a united front difficult.
6.3 Tools being used to make a business case, and the level of evidencing being called for
Decision makers in different catchments require different levels of decision-making support and
certainty before acting. This is often due to variations in their underlying political or organisational
context, and the timeframe over which decisions apply (Schmidt & Mulligan, 2013) Investment
decision tools need to manage uncertainty and maximise cost effectiveness. This should be done by:
 prioritising types of interventions (e.g. easements and best management practices) and the
distribution of those interventions throughout the catchment
 carefully monitoring the response of water resources throughout implementation. A
summary of monitoring approaches adopted by US water utilities identified four main types
of monitoring : socio-economic, economic performance, biophysical and hydrological
monitoring (Bennett and Carroll, 2014; WRF, 2015).
 managing investments adaptively to maximise outcomes (Freeman et al., 2013).
A range of tools are being used to make a business case (shown in Table 5).
Rapid stocktake
Table 5. Tools in use to support a source catchment protection business case
Tool What is it?

Risk based assessment The most important tool in determining where to implement preventative barriers within the source is through the application of a source water risk
assessment. Source water risk assessments involve assessing the risks to drinking water quality that arise in a particular source recharge area, with the
results determining the appropriate risk management actions and their prioritisation.
Risk assessment evaluates the interactions between water quality values, the stressors to these, and management actions for protecting the values.
This is used to assess the potential impacts of stressors to water quality values. This is done in a consistent, clear and structured way using a risk
assessment framework.
The outcomes of a source water risk assessment are:
 an estimation of the likelihood that values may be impacted, and how the impact changes given alternative scenarios
 detailed information and tools that help to better understand how systems work
 targeted management actions and monitoring programs.
Financial analysis Compares the financial costs and benefits of (natural or built) infrastructure investments.
Financial analysis alone is typically insufficient for an economic appraisal as it examines a project only from the narrow perspective of the entity
undertaking the project. A traditional financial analysis does not take account of effects on other enterprises or individuals nor does it consider the
opportunity cost when the price of a good or service is not a good indicator of the real value.
Cost-benefit analysis The most robust method for examining the economic viability of a source water scheme is to consider the marginal value of the scheme using a cost-
benefit analysis (CBA) framework. CBA is the most comprehensive of the economic appraisal techniques and is the preferred method of analysis for
most State and Commonwealth (AUS) and Federal (US) agencies responsible for economic management.
CBA does not specifically address matters of equity or perception, including political sensitivity, moral obligations or cultural issues. Where applicable,
these issues must be subjectively assessed by decision makers and weighed against the economic impacts.
If all of the costs and benefits have not been quantified, then a subjective assessment of the unquantified factors may be required to make a final
assessment. In these cases, a ‘threshold analysis’ can be useful. A threshold analysis does not seek to quantify the remaining costs and benefits, but
involves a subjective comparison of the unquantified costs and benefits against the quantified net present value result. Threshold analysis generally
seeks to answer the question ‘Is the unquantified benefit enough to outweigh the quantified cost?’
Cost effectiveness analysis Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares the costs of different project options with the same or similar outputs.
For example, if the primary purpose of a source water scheme was to avoid discharges to an environmentally sensitive river, then the CEA technique
would compare the cost of the natural infrastructure with the cost of alternative methods of disposal.
CEA is a well-accepted alternative to CBA when the major benefits cannot (or will not) be quantified, however it is generally considered a ‘second best’
alternative if the benefits can be quantified and included in a CBA.
Economic impact analysis For example, input-output analysis, computable generated equilibrium models, etc. An economic impact analysis attempts to estimate changes to
economic activity associated with a development. However, all government expenditure has economic impacts and generates employment; therefore,
an economic impact analysis of the positive impacts of one particular project does not help a government decide where it should allocate public
funds. More importantly, an economic impact analysis does not relate the expected benefits to the costs involved ‒ that is, the benefits the
community might expect to flow on from the taxpayer-funded costs involved.
Rapid stocktake
Tool What is it?
Input-output (multiplier) analysis is one of the most common tools used to assess the regional impacts of a project. In the simplest form of input-
output analysis, input-output multipliers are applied to measures of direct impact to determine estimates of flow-on impacts in terms of income and
employment. The most important limitation is that input-output analysis is concerned with measuring economic activity, and is not a tool for the
evaluation of projects. Input-output analysis does not take account of the alternative uses (opportunity costs) of resources. Input-output analysis may
indicate positive impacts – activity – without providing guidance as to whether such impacts correspond with net benefits. Poor investments, perhaps
in heavily subsidised fields of endeavor, could be associated with greater levels of activity than good investments.
Incidence analysis An incidence analysis disaggregates the overall impacts of options according to the impact on individual community groups. The disaggregation is
commonly undertaken in terms of the income grouping of those affected by a specific development. As such, it provides valuable information to
decision makers about the distribution of benefits and costs, but is not an alternative to CBA or CEA in its own right.
Multiple objective Uses techniques (such as multi-criteria analysis) to select projects based on multiple explicit objectives, particularly for options that have several
planning objectives which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. The estimation of weights for each objective can be tenuous, however the technique can
help evaluate complex applications of CEA.
Green-grey analysis (GGA) A type of investment analysis (cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, depending on the situation) that provides a basis for considering
both natural (green) and built (gray) infrastructure alternatives.
Rapid stocktake
The level of evidence being called for is largely driven by risk assessment (Miller et al., 2009), as described in Table 6.
Table 6. Tiered process of risk assessment
Description source Level of risk Other factors Resources Stakeholders Recommended risk Intensity of risk
features – political, social, tier level assessment
economic
Small isolated source, Not well understood; or minimal water No known historical or Compliance water quality Limited, land is 1 Desktop study
population served quality trends of concern (none current issues monitoring data almost entirely with project team
1-500 microbiological) Basic land uses surveyed and under coming together
Rare reportable issues listed, on-ground practices not utility/Crown only for review
Land uses or activities present that pose well understood ownership and issue
minimal water quality risk Limited understanding of resolution
Some barriers in place, but never validated hydrological characteristics
Source storage time exceeds 30 days
Not well understood; or some water Potential future land Compliance water quality Land ownership 2 (or 3 if source
quality trends of concern (including use issues monitoring data, limited is a mixture of storage time is less
microbiological) investigative data private and than 30 days at
Rare reportable issues Basic land uses surveyed and Crown times of highest Desktop study for
Land uses or activities present that pose listed, on-ground practices not risk) data collation,
water quality risk with the potential for well understood regular
increased risk Limited understanding of workshops for
Some barriers in place, but never validated hydrological characteristics project team
Medium – large Rare
Sourcereportable events
storage time is less than 30 days Some local; community Compliance water quality Numerous, as 2
source, regional Less than 5 water quality trends of or stakeholder concern monitoring data land within
population served concern (non-microbiological) Some limited investigative source area is
500-100 000 Barriers in place have some limitations monitoring data under mixed
validated Land uses surveyed, practices ownership‒
reasonably well understood and LGAs, state
Past risk assessments indicate some land
possibly mapped simply government
uses/activities of risk to water quality
authorities,
Very few licensed premises
industry, private
Good understanding of land owners
hydrological characteristics
Rapid stocktake
Description source Level of risk Other factors Resources Stakeholders Recommended risk Intensity of risk
features – political, social, tier level assessment
economic
1‒3 reportable events per year (including Some local; community Compliance water quality Numerous, as 3
microbiological) or stakeholder concern monitoring data land within
Barrier failure suspected but not in past, and increased Some limited investigative source area is
confirmed potential for the future monitoring data under mixed
Less than 5 water quality trends of Land uses surveyed, practices ownership‒
concern reasonably well understood and LGAs, state
possibly mapped government
Barriers in place have some limitations
authorities, Workshop for all
validated Some licensed premises
industry, private key stages in risk
Past risk assessment indicates several land Good understanding of land owners assessment
uses/activities of risk to water quality hydrological characteristics
process
Large Metropolitan 1‒5 reportable events per year (including Highly political, Extensive investigative and LGAs, state 3
source population microbiological) community very compliance monitoring government
servicing 100 000 + Any water quality issues/trends of concern interested in water Land uses and practices very well authorities,
Most barriers in place effective but some quality and public understood and documented. GIS industry, private
have limitations health, several social mapping land owners,
issues Licensed premises community as a
Barrier failure confirmed for very
whole
occasional events High level understanding of
Past risk assessment indicates minimal hydrological characteristics
land uses/activities of risk to water quality
1‒5 reportable events per year Highly political, Extensive investigative and LGAs, state 3
Any water quality issues/trends of concern community very compliance monitoring government
Barriers in place have some limitations interested in water Land uses and practices very well authorities,
quality and public understood and documented. GIS industry, private
Barrier failure confirmed for some events
health, numerous social mapping land owners,
Past risk assessment indicates land issues community as a
uses/activities of risk to water quality Numerous licensed premises
whole
High level understanding of
hydrological characteristics
Rapid stocktake
7 Monitoring and evaluating catchment intervention outcomes
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting (and improvement) are integral components of source catchment
management projects and programs. They provide a means to assess the impact, appropriateness,
effectiveness, efficiency and legacy of policies and programs, and a process by which to promote
accountability. Evaluation, in particular, is an essential component of source catchment planning and
management and must be considered at every stage of investment and program planning and
implementation.
The task of assessing and tracking the progress of investments in source catchment activities is an
enduring challenge. This is because:
 outcomes need to be achieved at a range of spatial scales

 multiple interacting factors affect the health of assets
 the condition of assets can be highly variable naturally

 there can be long time lags between management actions and a detectable difference in the
condition of assets
 the social context in which source catchment management operates can often mean there are
different views on what constitutes ‘success’
 climatic impacts can dwarf source water management impacts
 developing cost-effective indicators presents a challenge.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting frameworks in Australia have now been developed and published
by most state, territory and federal government agencies responsible for natural resources policy and
management (e.g. Zammit et al., 2000; DECC, 2009; DEWNR, 2014; MDBA, 2014; DERM, 2009; DNRM,
2013; Raymond, 2010; Territory NRM, 2011). They all have similar structures and principles, including
the development of conceptual understanding of the systems being considered, mapping program
actions and goals, and articulating the logic between immediate (or foundational) activities and
long-term goals (via intermediate goals). They also invariably reflect the concepts behind the adaptive
management cycle and continuous participation and communication, including the notion of continuous
improvement through regular reporting and understanding of outcomes from management actions.
The NRM Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework (NRM MERI Framework),
developed with Australian Government funding in 2009 to assist with natural resources management in
Australia, is a leading example of a fourth generation monitoring and evaluation framework (AGLC,
2009). It provides a generic framework for monitoring, evaluating, reporting on and improving the
management of key environmental and resource assets. The purpose of the NRM MERI Framework is to
reinforce, review and refine natural resource management and investment strategies and practices to
ensure that adaptive management occurs as part of continuous improvement. It provides a model for
assessing program performance and the state of (and change over time in) assets against planned
immediate, intermediate and longer-term outcomes. It also provides opportunities to improve program
and project design and delivery and to reorient investment at key decision points throughout the life of
an investment strategy or policy.
The NRM MERI Framework places the emphasis on assets—both the intrinsic and utilitarian values that
people place on the environment and the many resources and opportunities it provides for human
consumption and wellbeing. An asset-based approach is most amenable to targeting and measuring
outcomes in terms of conservation, repair and replenishment of natural resources. It also enables
construction of a logic (or theory of change) to guide actions for improving the state of an asset. This in
turn enables the development of measurements to monitor and assess:
 changes in the asset over time
 the relative effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of different interventions
 the extent of change or impact from action.
More detail on the NRM MERI Framework (i.e. program logic, principles that underpin it, the MERI
approach) is provided at Appendix C.
Rapid stocktake
8 Summary of key findings and next steps
The scope of our rapid stocktake review is focused on source catchment management in impaired multi-
use catchments, and catchments that were expected to inform the development of the catchment
management investment standard (CMIS) for this project. Key findings from this review are summarised
in Table 7.
Table 7. Summary of key findings of the rapid stocktake review
Theme Main elements Main findings

Legal Water legislation Minimum regulatory requirement(s) that codify
Environmental legislation catchment management as a key driver for water
source protection are essential.
Economic regulation
Health regulation
Planning Land-use planning Water supply catchments often cover large
Planning responsibility geographical areas and have multiple layers of
planning jurisdiction. Appropriate legislative powers
Local Government role and cooperative planning approaches are therefore
required. Local government as the statutory land
use planning authority in most catchments must be
included in the planning framework.
Economic Asset basis Clear evidence that the avoided water treatment
Risk costing costs of built infrastructure (variable and/or fixed)
exceed the costs of catchment management actions
Micro-economic tools needed to avoid the treatment costs is needed.
Business case development – program A business case must also prove additionality
(benefits above and beyond regulatory
Business case development ‒ project
requirements).
Engagement Private landholders The importance of influencing key decision makers
Catchment community and communities of practice to engender support
for water source catchment protection and
Water customers management cannot be understated.
Rapid stocktake
Case Study 1: Engaging with customers about catchments
Introduction
Literature examined during this report identified that effective stakeholder engagement was a key
component of many successful catchment management projects. It was identified that a range of
stakeholders including policy makers, legislators, key internal organisational decision makers and
catchment based organisations and communities are critical to catchment management outcomes.
Engagement with communities and the drinking water customers within them should be a key part of
any catchment management program, but has generally been overlooked. The need to inform and
engage drinking water customers in the production and management of their water supply is, however,
now becoming an industry imperative. This is in part because regulators are requiring utilities to better
demonstrate how they are managing this highly important relationship. This case study reports
examples in which drinking water customers have been engaged as part of source catchment
management programs and investments.
Relationship to the Influence Matrix

The Influence Matrix developed as part of the Rapid Stocktake identified drinking water customers as a
key element influencing source water protection. Engagement with customers was identified as a key
element in achieving the outcomes of source water protection and therefore suitable as a case study.
The examples chosen below were selected because of their recent success in engaging the broader
community and water customers around key issues such as increasing investment to deliver better
source catchment protection outcomes.
US Example
City of Whitefish
Whitefish, Montana (the City) is a city of approximately 6,500 people. Haskill Creek and the associated
Haskill Basin are the source of more than 75% of the City water supply. The majority of the area in the
catchment and surrounding the water off-takes for the City water supply has traditionally been owned
by the F.H Stolze Land and Lumber Company as part of its forest estate of more than 38,000 acres
(153.78sq km) throughout the Flathead Valley area (City of Whitefish 2015).
For more than a century the City relied on the company to act responsibly and grant access to the
catchment lands to access the source water supply and provide recreational opportunities for the
community.
Negotiations involving the City, F.H. Stolze Land and Lumber Company and other interested parties
regarding the need to preserve portions of the Company’s forest land in and around Haskill Basin to
protect and preserve water quality and quantity from development were undertaken over a decade.
The Trust for Public Land negotiated an option for the City to purchase 3,020 acres (12.22sq km) in key
locations around Haskill Basin for $17 million dollars as a conservation easement. Seven million dollars
was received from a US Forest Service Legacy Grant and $2 million from a Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund Grant to assist in the purchase, with the City required to raise the final $8
million (City of Whitefish 2015).
The final sale price of $17 million represented an effective sale price of approximately $5,600 per acre
($1.39million/sq. km), considerably more than the $12 per acre ($3,000/sq. km) that F.H. Stolze Land
and Lumber Company offered to sell the land for in 1929. The City thought that an excessive price at
that time (McKenzie 2015). So the City of Whitefish engaged the technical assistance of the Trust for
Public Land through their Conservation Finance Program to research the funding options. The fund
recommended raising the resort tax from 2% to 3% to raise the required funding. The City Council
decided that the best way to finance the purchase was through issuing water revenue bonds, with the
additional revenue from the resort tax used to repay the loan or bond (City of Whitefish 2015).
It was determined that 70% of the funds raised would be used to purchase a conservation easement
that would preclude development and protect over 3,000 acres of Haskill Basin; 25% would be directed
to provide property tax relief for Whitefish homeowners; and 5% would be devoted toward
administration costs. The 1% increase in the resort tax would raise an estimated $1 million per year for
ten years.
The Council determined that the purchase of the conservation easement, the increase in the resort tax
and the issuing of the bond be put to the electors of the City through a mail ballot. The mail ballot was
conducted in April 2015, with 83% of voters voting for the catchment protection measure (Protect
Haskill Basin 2015).
The associated promotional materials from the successful “yes” campaign are shown in Figure 1. The
campaign to attract the “yes” vote was highly organised and contained a dedicated website (Protect
Haskill Basin – see screen shot Figure 1), with comprehensive yet simple information for the public. The
campaign also included the proactive use of social media (in particular Facebook) and a range of other
media strategies to engage and educate the public.
Rapid stocktake
Figure 1: Promotional materials from successful ‘yes’ campaign
Rapid stocktake
Rapid stocktake
Australian Example
Melbourne Water
Melbourne Water supplies bulk water, manages catchments and reservoirs, treats sewage, recycles
water, manages flooding and protects rivers and creeks. It is a regulated entity owned by the Victorian
Government. Melbourne Water’s management district extends from the Yarra Ranges to Ballan in the
west, across to Tarago in the east and includes Phillip Island and the Mornington Peninsula (Figure 2).
Four million people live within the region with the majority of water supplied from the protected
catchments (Melbourne Water 2015).
Melbourne Water’s responsibilities include waterway health, improved flood protection, stormwater
management and land development within their waterway management district. Under various
legislative instruments, Melbourne Water has clear high level statutory obligations and responsibility as
the ‘caretaker of river health’ and floodplain manager for the Port Phillip and Westernport Region.
To fund services in the management district, Melbourne Water levy a Waterways and Drainage annual
charge of $95 per household. Prices charged by Melbourne Water are reviewed and set for up to five
years by the independent economic regulator, the Essential Services Commission (ESC).
While Melbourne Water’s overall obligation to provide waterways and drainage services is clear, the
required level of service is not clearly specified in legislation. As a regulated service, the level of
waterway and drainage services provided by Melbourne Water must:
 clearly address a regulatory requirement. That is, Melbourne Water needs to demonstrate that
any waterway and drainage activities it delivers are contributing to Melbourne Water’s specific
objectives as set out in legislation and regulation
 where levels of service are not clearly specified, Melbourne Water’s investment case needs to
prove additionality and that (1) customers are willing to pay for the additional services that are
being delivered or (2) the works contribute towards achieving regulatory objectives more
effectively than alternative mechanisms
Melbourne Water uses innovative customer consultation and engagement to set its ‘community driven’
levels of service for waterway, catchment and drainage asset activities. Their approach to deriving the
optimal level of service across the service areas has been driven by considering different options for
prudent and efficient expenditure against obligations, as well as evidence of what customers within the
community are willing to pay for these services.
Customer and community engagement helped Melbourne Water to understand the extent to which its
customers are willing to invest in particular outcomes and activities. A key input to this understanding
was a customer survey trade off modelling exercise. The trade-off survey enabled Melbourne Water to
understand customer preferences about the overall extent of investment in delivering waterway and
flooding outcomes, as well as the types of activities that they would like Melbourne Water to invest in
to achieve those outcomes.
The survey explored willingness to pay for services through the Simultaneous Multi-Attribute Level
Trade-Off Analysis (SIMALTO) method. SIMALTO is a trade-off analysis tool that presents participants
with a number of current or potential activities and outcomes that may form part of a service, each with
staged levels of service.
Rapid stocktake
A survey of a representative sample of the Melbourne community (>1000 people) were asked to
indicate what level of service they would prefer to receive, to determine the optimal combination across
all customers. The SIMALTO technique allowed participants to consider activities or outcomes one at a
time. Participants had ‘points’ to spend across different activities or outcomes to show how they are
valued and were also able to review their choices as they went.
This is the first time in Australia that the level of investment in natural resources management has been
tested in this way. The survey is helping Melbourne Water to identify investment priorities for the next
five years, and the overall level of investment supported by its customers.
Figure 2: Melbourne water drainage and water services
Additional Australian context

In September 2010 the Standing Committee on Public Administration in the Western Australian
Legislative Council (WA Parliament) produced a report entitled “Recreation Activities within Public
Drinking Water Source Areas” (LCWA 2010). As part of the committee’s deliberations, the community’s
views on the value of water and recreation in source areas were investigated in some detail. Key
findings from that section of the report are as follows:
 A survey of 7000 residents found that 83% of the general population felt that water sources
should be protected by prevention rather than relying on treatment,
Rapid stocktake
 In the same survey 70% of respondents found that protection of drinking water should take
priority over all other issues,
 Strong representations were made by recreational groups to increase access to public water
storages for activities such as fishing.
The committee considered the environmental, social and economic risks posed by recreation in drinking
water catchments and as a result resolved in their final report (LCWA 2010) that:
 The cost of the standard of water treatment required to enable recreation in source catchments
is contrary to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines multiple barrier approach (with the full
treatment required to enable recreation being clearly viewed as too costly on the public purse)
 Humans recreation in source areas pose an unacceptable risk to drinking water quality
 As a result no further increase in recreational activity was recommended for source water
catchments.
Key Success Factors

Both organisations have been successful in engaging with final customers regarding source catchment
protection measures. Many water authorities have not attempted this to date.
The success of the City of Whitefish in engaging with customers was enhanced through partnering with
the Trust for Public Land who were able to secure external funding (for conservation) and identify other
levy and taxation opportunities to raise the additional funds through issuing a bond. A proactive
community engagement program (including social media) was also an essential component of their
success. Both case studies identify the value in early investment.
Melbourne Water used an innovative willingness to pay survey technique to help identify waterway
investment priorities for the next five years, and the overall level of investment supported by its
customers. Extensive community surveys such as that conducted in Australia by the WA Parliament can
provide very strong levels of support for high standards of source water protection.
Recommendations
Engagement with customers can potentially be a positive for catchment management programs, as
there appears to be a distinct preference in a number of communities for such types of approaches.
Opportunities to gain customer input and understanding of options and trade-offs regarding water
supply through ballots and surveys should be pursued. Customer approval of programs can give a
decisive advantage to catchment programs particularly in a regulatory environment. Water industry
regulators such as Ofwat in the United Kingdom and IPART in New South Wales are seeking water
businesses to establish service targets based on an assessment of customers’ priorities for service
provision, and their willingness to pay for maintenance or improvement or reduction in services.
Outcomes are to be measured in terms of quantitative and qualitative factors, using measurable
performance metrics and customer surveys (Frontier Economic 2014).
Rapid stocktake
Case Study 2: Landuse planning in open catchments
Introduction
Literature examined during the Rapid Stocktake for this project identified the criticality of effective
landuse planning in managing risks to water quality. A fundamental learning from water utilities that
have avoided expensive technological solutions to drinking water quality is the importance of acting to
protect critical catchment lands from inappropriate development. The business case for effective
landuse planning rests not only on the potential cost saving in terms of water treatment but also on the
fact that in most instances over the longer term the opportunity costs of catchment protection are rising
as the value of land and the worth of foregone land-uses increases. Delaying action can make catchment
protection prohibitively expensive. Water utilities in some jurisdictions can capitalise land purchases and
include these costs in overall water price charged to consumers.
In most cases outright purchases of catchment land are not feasible due to scale and cost factors. For
several water utilities, previous generations have had the foresight to identify the value in protecting
catchments to preserve water quality, and the utilities have been identified as now completely owning
their catchments or having highly forested catchments with limited development pressures (e.g. Boston
and Portland in the US and Melbourne Water being an Australian exemplar). Interviews conducted as
part of this project have identified water utilities such as Massachusetts that have active buyback
programs aimed at acquiring critical components of the catchment under threat from development.
The reality for many water utilities however is open catchments and the need to deal with a complex
mosaic of catchment governance, management, ownership, development pressures, industries and
communities. Within open source catchments effective planning controls have been identified as a key
measure to prevent further decline in water quality.
In the main, landuse planning is outside the formal control of water utilities and they are one of multiple
players in a highly contested landscape. Local government is usually charged with the formal landuse
planning function within catchments and manages the approval and conditioning of development
applications. Two geographically based best practice approaches identified through consultation are
presented to illustrate potential responses to the challenges of land use planning in catchments.
The Influence Matrix identified catchment organisations, catchment industries, landholders and the
catchment community as key organisations and individuals influencing source water protection.
Effective land use planning was identified as a key element in achieving this outcome and therefore
suitable as a case study.
US Example
New York City Water Supply
The New York City water supply system consists of three surface water sources (the Croton, the Catskill
and the Delaware catchments). The three upstate water collection systems include 19 reservoirs and
three controlled lakes. They were designed and built with various interconnections to increase flexibility
to meet quality and quantity goals and to mitigate the impact of localized droughts. The system supplies
drinking water to almost half the population of the State of New York – more than 8.2 million residents
of New York City and one million people in Westchester, Putnam, Orange and Ulster Counties – plus the
millions of commuters and tourists who visit the City throughout the year (Warne 2015).
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency charged with primary
responsibility for overseeing the operation, maintenance and management of the water supply
infrastructure and the protection of the catchment. Within DEP, the Bureau of Water Supply manages
the catchments and its infrastructure and all drinking water quality monitoring both in the City and
upstate. The New York Watershed Rules and Regulations is the primary instrument controlling the
impacts of current and future landuse. The purpose of the rules and regulations is ‘to protect the public
health by averting future contamination to and degradation of the water supply and by remediating
existing sources of pollution or degradation of the New York City Water Supply. These rules and
regulations implement the Department’s intention to minimise the discharge of pollutants into the
source waters from both point and non-point sources, minimise the adverse impacts of erosion, limit the
discharge of phosphorous to source waters which may accelerate the eutrophication process, and
provide notice to the City of ongoing or proposed activities which either alone or in conjunction with
other existing and proposed regulated activities, may cause contamination to or degradation of the
water supply (NYC Watershed Final Regulations 2010 p.2).
The Watershed Rules and Regulations give DEP regulatory authority over activities that, if improperly
carried out, could threaten to add nutrients, pathogens, and other contaminants into the water supply.
The landuse and activities impacted by the regulation include wastewater discharges, urban, rural,
mining and silvicultural landuse practices that result in non-point source pollution. Potential pollution
from agricultural lands is addressed via a separate mechanism, the voluntary Watershed Agricultural
Program.
The rules and regulations effectively control landuse through establishing standards under which new
development can occur and existing uses are practiced. While the regulation is directed primarily
toward regulating sewage collection and treatment, stormwater discharges and impervious surfaces, it
also regulates activities such as petroleum storage, winter highway sand and salt storage facilities, and
solid waste management and disposal. In general, the regulation requires that persons proposing to
engage in a regulated activity in the watershed meet stringent water quality discharge standards set out
in the regulations and, in many cases, obtain prior review and approval before undertaking the activity.
Rapid stocktake
Key features of the regulation are:
 All regulated activities must be planned and designed not to constitute a source of
contamination.
 The burden of demonstrating compliance is on the person engaging in the activity.
 The Department may order that a regulated activity cease or a facility be removed if it is causing
contamination or degradation of the water supply.
Australian Example
Sydney Drinking Water Supply Management
Sydney Water supplies potable water to more than 4.5 million people in Sydney and the extended
Illawarra, Blue Mountains, Shoalhaven, Goulburn and Southern Highlands regions. Catchments to the
south and west of Sydney supply the majority of drinking water. The catchments cover almost 16,000
square kilometres. More than one-third is agricultural land used for grazing, cropping and horticulture.
Approximately one-third is national park and bushland. The catchment area is home to 120,000 people.
Ten major dams and nine filtration plants supply the bulk of water. More than 80% of Sydney water is
treated at the Prospect water filtration plant, which supplies more than 3.7 million people.
The 1998 Sydney Water Crisis involving potential contamination with cryptosporidium and giardia and
the subsequent government inquiry increased the focus on catchment management and landuse
planning. The main finding of the inquiry was that the local catchments were seriously compromised by
many potential sources of contamination and that there was insufficient regulatory control to guarantee
safe drinking water.
The Sydney Catchment Authority was established to manage dams and catchments with its functions
now subsumed by Water NSW. Fifteen Local Councils are responsible for landuse and zoning within the
catchments. As such significant effort has been focused on assisting local governments to undertake
appropriate landuse planning in the catchments. To protect water quality, the Sydney Catchment
Authority developed strategic land and water quality assessments based on matching the physical
capacity of land with its use to help guide planning scheme zoning.
In response to the Inquiry, the Sydney Catchment Authority developed the Neutral or Beneficial Effect
on Water Quality Assessment Guideline. The Guideline is a key aspect of the State Environmental
Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment 2011) that has three main aims:
 To support healthy water catchments that deliver high quality water and permit development
that supports that goal
 To ensure that consent utilities only allow proposed developments that have a neutral or
beneficial effect on water quality
 To support water quality objectives in the drinking water catchment.
The guideline is designed to assist consent and public utilities to determine whether or not new
development proposals in the drinking water catchment will have a neutral or beneficial effect on water
quality. A neutral or beneficial effect (NorBE) on water quality is satisfied if the development:
a) has no identifiable potential impact on water quality, or
Rapid stocktake
b) will contain any water quality impact on the development site and prevent it from reaching any
watercourse, waterbody or drainage depression on the site, or
c) will transfer any water quality impact outside the site where it is treated and disposed of to
standards approved by the consent authority.
The principles underlying the guideline are that:
 Assessment for a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality is required under the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
 It is the development proponent’s responsibility to demonstrate that a development will have a
neutral or beneficial effect on water quality.
 The level of assessment required matches the level of risk of the development - developments
with a greater potential risk to water quality will require more thorough assessment.
 Good project design leading to source management and control, and retaining natural features
of waterways, is better than structural and ‘end of pipe’ solutions. All measures must be taken
to contain on-site any potential impacts resulting from a proposed development.
 The guideline outlines a practical and simple process to minimise the cost to developers, the
community and the consent or public authority while providing the flexibility to achieve the best
outcomes.
The NorBE assessment involves an assessment of surface and groundwater impacts of developments
and includes constructional and operational stages. The NorBE assessment requires development
applicants to identify potential impacts on water quality and which pollutants are likely. For each
pollutant the safeguards required to prevent or mitigate potential impacts on water quality are outlined.
Endorsed current recommended practices have been developed for a range of issues. An overall
assessment of the neutral or beneficial effect is required. Only if NorBE has been demonstrated to be in
line with the guideline can the development within the catchment be allowed.
Benchmarking – A Comparison of New York and Sydney

Table 8: Catchment summary
Bulk Water Provider Total Catchment Area Population Serviced Land Uses
New York City 5,000 sq. km 9.2 million Forestry

Agriculture
Rural Residential
Urban
Sydney Water 16,000 sq. km 4.5 million Forestry
Agriculture
Rural Residential
Urban
Both case studies are set in open source catchments that are highly contested spaces (Table 8). The New
York and Sydney case studies show that often water utilities are not in charge of landuse planning and
are one of a number of competing interests. Local government plays a critical role in landuse planning
and have a number of capacity constraints that limit their capacity to fulfil their role. In both instances
examined the water utilities have provided extensive guidance material and resources to better inform
Rapid stocktake
future landuse planning. In the Sydney example a major water quality incident prompted reform of the
water management system and the approach to land use planning in the supply catchment.
The Sydney guideline is only triggered by new development applications and many activities such as an
intensification of existing agricultural production are not impacted by the development application
process. The New York case study regulation covers a far broader range of land uses and industries and
regulates existing as well as proposed pollution sources. The strong regulatory basis within the New
York source catchments towards existing and proposed land uses has enhanced the adoption of
associated programs such as best management practice.
Key Success Factors

The key success factors identified in terms of land use planning are:
 Strong engagement with local government.

 Provision of extensive guidance material and support services.
 Significant internal resourcing to manage land use impacts.
 Resourcing of external agencies to manage land use impacts appropriately.
Recommendations
On the basis of the case studies examined it is recommended that where statutory obligations do not
exist, water utilities engage with local governments to manage threats to water quality from existing
and proposed land uses.
Water utilities should pursue or seek to enhance powers that ascribe them a formal role in strategic and
statutory land use and the ability to address or influence existing and emerging sources of pollution.
Water utilities need to resource internal and external activities to manage water quality threats from
land use and proactively influence strategic landuse planning processes.
Rapid stocktake
Case Study 3: Source catchment legislation in the US and Australia
Introduction
One of the key issues identified in the broader project is the importance of influencing key decision
makers and communities of practice to engender support for water source catchment protection
and management. In the politico-economic context one of these issues is the influence of legislators
at the federal, state and local government level. At the federal level significant differences were
identified between the US and Australia. This case study seeks to explore those differences as well
as any that are relevant at the state and local government levels in the two countries.
A list of regulations, policies, property right and institutional arrangements for drinking water quality
across Australia and the US were considered in this Rapid Stocktake Report. The relevant aspects of
these are considered further here, with Melbourne Water selected as a focal point for the case study
in Australia given the history this utility has with source catchment protection.

The Influence Matrix project identified legislators as a key element influencing source water
protection. Potential change to legislation and policy were identified as a key element in achieving
future outcomes of source water protection and therefore suitable as a case study.
Federal agency level: United States

The two major national laws governing water quality in the US are the Clean Water Act (1972) (the
CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974) (the SDWA). These and other heads of power exist to
support the implementation and enforcement of source protection initiatives. In both cases the
regulatory agency is the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which delegates significant
regulatory authority to the states and their environmental agencies. Each of these pieces of
legislation is considered in turn below.
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)

The SDWA requires USEPA to set limits (Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) on contaminants on
all drinking water served by public water systems, and to set rules regarding sampling methods and
testing schedules. States are granted “primacy” or the authority to implement SDWA regulations if
they set standards that are at least as strong as the USEPA. All states except for Wyoming directly
oversee the implementation of SDWA.
In 1986, the SDWA was amended in order to address growing concerns with giardia and
cryptosporidium outbreaks in small, unfiltered systems in the early 1980s. This amendment
established a mandatory filtration requirement, but allowed utilities to apply to EPA for an
Avoidance by demonstrating compliance with water quality standards and having a long-term source
water protection plan. This provided the legislative framework that still exists for utilities to manage
catchment basins in the United States. New York City is a well-known example of a utility that was
granted a Filtration Avoidance and established a long-term source water protection program in the
early 1990s, saving them billions of dollars in avoided costs. The 1986 amendments also established
the Well Head Protection Program.
In 1996, the SDWA was amended again to expand the scope of the program to include assessment
and protection plans for surface water systems. All state agencies were required to develop source
water assessments to identify threats to drinking water sources, and federal funding was provided to
help states complete the source water assessments. Federal funding is no longer specifically
dedicated to source water assessments, and in most states there are no regulations requiring water
systems to use or implement their source water protection plans. Many of those plans are now more
than 15 years old, but there is no current regulatory requirement or dedicated fund to update them.
Clean Water Act

The main objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation’s waters” through regulating the discharges of pollutants into “the waters of
the United States.” This is primarily done through permits, which are required for every point
source. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the program that controls
discharges. Like the SDWA, states can be authorized to implement the NPDES system, and all but 4
states do. The CWA established a new requirement for technology-based standards based on
pollution control technologies. This requires all permitted facilities to use a “best available
technology” as a minimum regulatory requirement. Additional water quality standards can apply on
top of the technology-based standard based on the designated use of a particular water body and
the resulting ambient water quality criteria (through the Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL
process) and anti-degradation provisions.
The CWA’s technology-based and water quality standards have helped curb point source pollution
into waterways in the US, but non-point source pollution has been much more difficult to tackle.
Under the Clean Water Act, when a body of water is determined to have impaired water quality due
to particular pollution loadings, the relevant regulator (i.e. state) can establish a Total Maximum
Daily Loading Limit (TMDL) for that body of water, which is the amount of pollution allowed to be
discharged into the water body. That pollution budget is then allocated among various pollution
sources. Certain non-point sources were specifically exempted from the permitting program.
Agricultural non-point sources continue to be managed through “incentive” based policies like grant
programs and technical assistance, rather than through regulation. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; USEPA; and state programs offer grants and
assistance to agricultural landowners to adopt best practices that help protect waterways.
Rapid stocktake
An important feature of the Clean Water Act is its provision for Citizen Suits. Under the Act, if a point
source is violating its permit conditions and the State regulators are not enforcing against them,
affected private citizens can file suit in Federal Court to enforce compliance. Water utilities qualify
as citizens under the Act. This was a feature the City of New York used to great effect in the years it
was developing its watershed program as many of the streams in its watershed had sewage
treatment plants, both publicly owned plants by local towns and privately owned plants servicing
large exurban developments, discharging into them. The City filed over 30 Clean Water Citizen Suits
and won them all, significantly lowering the pollution level from local sewage operations and forcing
developers to properly invest and charge for the sanitary service needed to serve their
developments. These suits had support from environmentalists and watershed supporters. Local
community watershed associations have become an important stakeholder group in recent years.
Successes and failures of the current US federal legislative framework

The SDWA has been successful in maintaining an extremely high quality of water for water
customers. It has unfortunately fallen short with regard to protecting drinking water sources. While
the 1986 and 1996 amendments set off a flurry of activity with the filtration and source water
assessment requirements, the lack of funding or regulatory “follow-through” has led to a situation
where many utilities find it much easier to worry about the water quality once it is in the treatment
plant, rather than try to navigate the complicated political and physical landscape upstream.
The CWA has been extremely successful in improving the ambient quality of waterways in the US.
Only a few decades ago, some rivers were significantly impaired by industrial pollution. Today,
however, Federal and state regulatory agencies agree that non-point source pollution (run-off from
farms, construction sites, etc.) is responsible for more than 50% of the nation’s remaining water
quality issues (Copeland 2014). However, because of the technology-based structure of the CWA
and the difficulty in comparing point source and non-point source pollution sources, the full
potential of using CWA mechanisms to protect drinking water sources has not been realized.
Without these obstacles, the Clean Water Act’s TMDL program could be a powerful tool for
Catchment Basin planning and for bringing business analysis to selecting and justifying particular
pollution control strategies.
Utilities and regulatory agencies try to tackle non-point sources through a range of often-disparate
programs like water quality trading schemes or other market-based programs that meet with mixed
success. In the open catchments that supply New York there are successful programs managed by
the Bureau of Water Supply including incentives and partnership programs with landholders, land
acquisition programs, all of which are supported by broad-based education and advertising
campaigns.
Whilst diffuse pollution from agriculture remains a persistent concern in the US, there appears to be
no significant appetite for the regulation of non-point sources on the horizon. The CWA section 319
guidelines have, however, been reviewed relatively recently to provide an updated emphasis on
catchment project implementation in open catchments linked to Watershed-Based Plans in nine
areas, but funding availability for this program is in decline (EPA 2013).
A major barrier to protecting drinking water sources is that drinking water utility staff may not know
about the CWA regulations or the CWA programs that could protect their water sources. This is
Rapid stocktake
largely due to a lack of coordination between the state agencies themselves (e.g. CWA
implementation may be in the environmental programs office and the SDWA may be in the public
health office) which can lead to major data gaps, where state CWA programs may not know which
waterways should be designated for increased protection because they don’t work with the drinking
water program staff or have access to their data.
Opportunities for leveraging CWA & SDWA

Recently, several organizations have begun to discuss the potential for leveraging the strengths of
both the CWA and SDWA to help protect drinking water. The Ground Water Protection Council
(GWPC) published a report titled “Opportunities to Protect Drinking Water Sources and Advance
Watershed Goals through the Clean Water Act,” which identifies ways to use the CWA’s designation,
water quality, and anti-degradation policies specifically to protect drinking water sources (GWPC
2014). Another Water Research Foundation project looked at the ways utilities could use the CWA’s
TMDL process to protect drinking water sources, and recommended ways utilities can get involved
with the state (Sklenar and Blake, 2010). Finally, Section 3 of an Association for State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) report also details ways that state drinking water programs can integrate
with the clean water programs through communication and coordination (ASDWA 2007).
State agency level: United States

As outlined above US States have regulations delegated from the federal agencies that protect water
quality. In addition there are best management requirements for practices on working lands to very
specific land use restrictions. Some states have land use acts of state-wide application that regulate
major development in ways that have an impact on water quality. In all states, state law enables
municipalities through zoning to regulate development and use along waterways and within flood
zones. Many municipalities require setbacks and buffers between certain types of development and
streams. Some municipalities are required to regulate along waterways under state law. An example
is the Watershed Protection Act of the Division of Water Supply Protection in Massachusetts where
certain activities in the catchments are prohibited, 200-foot setbacks are required from streams and
400 foot setbacks are required from water infrastructure. Landuse planning and source catchment
protection is considered further in Case Study 2.
It should be noted that, subject to the general guidance of state public health and environmental
rules, it is local government that sets the requirement for and approves septic systems for suburban
and exurban developments. The siting and maintenance of these systems, and the decision when
and where to allow them or whether to require new developments to provide on-site sewage
treatment (package plants) or to hook up to municipal sewage treatment systems can be critical
determinants of catchment basin water quality outcomes.
Federal agency level: Australia

In Australia, there is currently no federal legislative head of power in relation to source water
protection. Whilst there is a National Water Quality Management Strategy (ANZECC 2000) which
can be used by state governments to legislate water quality objectives for receiving environments
Rapid stocktake
such as waterways, utilities are instead forced to rely on the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines
(ADWG) (NHMRC/NRMMC, 2011). The ADWG are “designed to provide an authoritative reference to
the Australian community and the water supply industry on what defines safe, good quality water,
how it can be achieved and how it can be assured” (NHMRC, 2015). They outline a quality
management approach to ensure water quality is protected from catchment to tap.
Significantly the ADWG do not set mandatory standards. The guidelines simply provide a basis for
determining the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia. They identify
that prevention of contamination provides greater surety for drinking water quality than removal of
contaminants by treatment. In addition they identify that the most important barrier in water
quality protection is the effective protection of the source or catchment, defining catchment
management as the first barrier in the multi-barrier approach (NHMRC/NRMMC, 2011).
During periodic reviews of the ADWG, there is the opportunity to improve the recognition for source
catchment protection and management programs. A well considered submission referencing the
outputs from the broader project that this case study is part of could help influence the future
direction of the ADWG. This is a significant opportunity which should be given careful consideration
by Australian water utilities, including the likely approach and resources required for such a
submission.
As in the US there is also no legislation designed specifically to target non-point sources and little
appetite from regulators to address the issue, even where appropriate powers exist e.g. Queensland
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has appropriate powers under the Environment
Protection Act 1994 but has little political support to use these powers to tackle non-point source
pollution, including agricultural run-off in water supply catchments. The concept of water safety
planning, i.e. greater emphasis on source catchment as the first step in ensuring safe drinking-water,
is to select and protect reliable, high quality source water, and is a key driver supporting action for
some utilities. Effective source protection can mitigate significant cost and reliance on fallible
downstream barriers such as water treatment and disinfection (Ford, 2008).
In Australia there is, however, another potential mechanism that could enable better source
catchment protection within the current legislative framework. The Commonwealth National
Environment Protection Council Act 1994, and complementary State and Territory legislation, enable
the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) to develop, enact and monitor the
implementation of national environmental standards, known as National Environment Protection
Measures (NEPMs).
NEPMs are a special set of national objectives designed to assist in protecting or managing particular
aspects of the environment. Currently, NEPMs can be made about a variety of environmental
matters including:
 ambient air quality

 ambient marine, estuarine and fresh water quality;
 the protection of amenity in relation to noise;
 general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination;
 environmental impacts associated with hazardous wastes;
 the re-use and recycling of used materials.
Rapid stocktake
Under the current legislation NEPMs have been developed in relation to, for example, ambient air
quality, the assessment of site contamination and the movement of controlled wastes. It is therefore
feasible that with proactive advocacy supported by a carefully considered business case, NEPMs
could be developed to set water quality objectives for source water catchments. These could then
provide utilities with a national legislative basis to progress improvements in water source
catchment management. In some states such as Victoria existing legislation refers to NEPMs so a
mechanism is already in place to recognise and support the development of appropriate NEPMs.
It could also be argued that documents under the National Water Quality Management Strategy
(NWQMS) are forms of NEPMs. There may be the opportunity linked to a review of the NWQMS to
advocate for a new policy document related to catchments and their management, and even source
water protection more specifically. The status of the current review is, however, unclear given
recent changes announced by the federal government. These changes see the NEPC sitting within
the Department of Environment. The committee to which the NEPC has been reporting to since its
inception, the Federal and State Ministerial Standing Council on Environment and Water, has been
abolished as part of a broader government process to reduce federal governance complexity. Such
an opportunity would take time to realise as the current governance dictate that any such changes
to the NWQMS would require endorsement by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).
State agency level: Victoria, Australia

Each state in the Australian context has differing legislative approach to source protection. In some
states such as Queensland, there are no formal referral roles for water utilities in the planning
system. Instead they rely predominantly on guidelines for development in source catchments that
local authorities are required to adopt. This case study will, however, focus on Victoria, and in
particular Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water’s role is “to manage water supply catchments, treat
and supply drinking and recycled water, remove and treat most of Melbourne’s sewage, and manage
waterways and major drainage systems in the Port Phillip and Westernport region with limited
statutory impact”. Legislation relevant to Melbourne Water’s role of managing water supply
catchments in Victoria is discussed further below.
Victoria Waterways Management Strategy

This strategy describes the approaches to meet the requirements regulated by the Water Act 1989
(Vic) (the Water Act), and the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (the CaLP Act). The Water
Act, which is administered by Melbourne Water and currently under review by the Victorian
Government, sets out the agency’s powers, duties and functions. Most source catchments are
recognised in planning and/or statutory law as ‘closed catchments’ and Melbourne Water has
powers to enforce this status under the Water Act.
As a result Melbourne is one of only five cities in the world with closed catchments. It has a long
history of restricting access to its water supply catchments and reservoirs. Much of Melbourne’s
water supply catchment is wholly publicly owned, and public access is completely prohibited or
restricted across 160,000 ha of uninhabited, forested catchments north east of the city. As a result
the water from these sources requires only disinfection. There are some ‘open catchment’ areas
with private ownership and unrestricted access. Development on these areas is limited by a permit
Rapid stocktake
application process under defined guidelines. Under the Water Act Melbourne Water has the power
to make by-laws which apply within a specific area of Melbourne Water’s responsibility. By-law No.
2: Waterways, Land and Works Protection and Management is relevant to source water protection.
The objectives of By-law No. 2 include:
• preventing or minimising interference with the flow of water

• preventing or minimising pollution of our waterways
• prohibiting or regulating the removal of materials from our waterways
Amongst other things, the By-law prohibits certain activities without written authorisation from
Melbourne Water, such as the carrying out of activities that interfere with the flow of water, cause
erosion or pollution, damage vegetation or removal of soil (without a permit issued under this By-
law)
One Victorian catchment relevant to Melbourne Water, Tarago, is a declared Water Supply
Catchment Area under the CaLP Act. This legislation provides links to local government planning
processes where Melbourne Water is a determining referral authority for permits triggered in water
supply areas under the CaLP. Experience suggests this works largely works well, although some local
authorities can occasionally become complacent with the referrals. In these instances Melbourne
Water proactively manages the relationship. In catchments that remain ‘open’ and not protected by
statutory processes, Melbourne Water relies on a suite of other tools including waterway programs
(riparian management), community grants and working collaboratively with local government for
appropriate planning outcomes. Melbourne Water is also a Water Storage Manager under the Safe
Drinking Water Act Victoria (SDWA) 2003. The SDWA and associate regulations require the Water
Storage Manager to prepare a Risk Management Plan that addresses risks to water quality.
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) (SEPP (WoV))
The SEPP WoV is subordinate legislation made under the provisions of the Environment Protection
Act 1970 to provide more detailed requirements and guidance for the application of the Act to
Victoria. This explicitly requires agencies such as Melbourne Water to play a role in meeting
particular water quality standards and supporting ‘beneficial uses’. The policy states: “This Policy
provides a legal framework for State and local government agencies, businesses and communities to
work together to protect and rehabilitate Victoria’s surface water environments. Importantly, it
supports Victoria’s catchment and coastal management processes and associated community
decision-making they support. This support is essential, as we all play a direct role in protecting our
environment for our future.”
The intent of the Act is management of catchment-to-tap risk to enable the delivery of safe drinking
water. Therefore, catchment investment for source water protection could be a legitimate and
important component of Melbourne Water’s Risk Management Plan. In practice, however, such
investment has not been specifically driven by the (drinking water) RMPs.
Rapid stocktake
A comparison – US and Victoria
The US regulatory and guideline environment for management of ambient (natural) water quality is
a point of contrast to Victoria's SEPP(WoV). The US CWA requires that US States set standards that
protect 'designated uses' and there is provision for 'anti-degradation'. Ambient water quality
standards for potable water supplies are proposed federally, and by each US State with USEPA
consent, and do not take treatment technologies into account (the US SDWA applies additional
standards at tap). The US approach to setting ambient water quality standards is described in the
'Water Quality Standards Handbook' (EPA 2014) and the present US federal ambient water quality
standards (available to be adopted or varied by US States with USEPA's consent) are listed on the
federal agency website
Following the USEPA's guidance, the ambient water quality standards that US States adopt can be
set to reflect the intrinsic value of the potable supply resource (note that there is a designation for,
inter alia, 'high-quality' but non-potable ambient waters, and a given body of water often has
multiple designated uses). In comparison, Schedule F7 (Waters of the Yarra) under is unclear in
relation to water quality triggers being set in recognition of protecting the intrinsic value of potable
water supply, i.e. without downstream treatment (the relevant Schedule F7 'beneficial use' being
'potable water supply with treatment'). Further the schedule defines what the treatment actually is
within a given water supply catchment and as a result there is no real recognition given to the
intrinsic value of source water itself. Instead, the approach suggests that treatment is able to solve
the necessary catchment water quality risks/issues, which in turn focuses investment on expensive
capital solutions with large OPEX requirements. This issue could be addressed if the schedule
referred only to potable water supply with the reference to treatment removed. At the time of
writing this case study, the Victorian SEPP(WoV) is currently under review.
There are sound risk-management arguments that support setting ambient water quality criteria for
potable water supplies and such criteria could play a role in formulating management plans, in
evaluating management programs, and in dispute settlement. The US approach (albeit with its own
challenges including agency coordination and insufficient diffuse pollution management) provides a
reasonable risk-management strategy and Victorian policy/regulation and Melbourne Water could
benefit by the adoption of a similar approach. This is a significant opportunity for water agencies
and would require adequate administrative and political support to utilise the necessary legislative
enforcement tools, and appropriate levels of resources to implement the necessary programs
(enforcement programs are often most successful when supported by strong educational and
encouragement programs). There would also be a benefit in ensuring that any new legislative
approach learns from the issues currently faced by water agencies, including the historically high
burden of proof required for existing legislative tools to deliver successful outcomes.
Legislation and the link to utility business cases for source catchment
protection
The key points relevant to the development of business cases for investment in source catchment
protection initiatives arising from the literature and stakeholder consultations during Phase 2 of the
project were as follows:
Rapid stocktake
 Regulations provide the baseline for how source catchments must be protected and
managed under Federal/Commonwealth, State, and Local Laws. The business case for source
catchment investments needs to prove additionality—that is, net beneficial impacts over
and above the regulatory minimum requirement for source management protection
(Mulligan, 2013). As previously noted, in Australia, NSW and Victoria have regulation-based
exclusion zones applied around dams where no development is permitted and public access
is restricted. Many US municipalities’ regulation requires setbacks and buffers between
development areas and water bodies in source catchments. Therefore, a business case
needs to be additional to this.
 Regulatory flexibility allows a natural infrastructure business case to get to the table. Many
of the regulations governing water resources take a flexible approach and allow the
regulated community (including water utilities and others) to use natural infrastructure to
achieve compliance in ways that reduce cost and may achieve greater environmental
benefits than are possible under a traditional regulatory approach. Where such a flexibility
approach is allowed, natural infrastructure approaches can be a cost effective alternative or
complementary strategy to built infrastructure in achieving compliance (Mulligan, 2013).
 Clearly defined property rights and policy demarcate responsibility for source catchment
management, and the extent to which source catchments are open or closed, can impact on
a business case getting to the table. Most often, source catchments that are characterised
by low development or (recreational) use are often owned and/or managed by Government.
In contrast, source catchments that are not owned by the implementing agency, or only
partially owned, will struggle harder to get a business case to the table, because investments
that occur on private land don’t accrue to the implementing agency’s balance sheet. For
example, the bulk of South Australia’s water supply catchments (90%) are privately owned
and co-managed, and intensively developed.
 Clear agency responsibility for delivery makes the case easier to get to the table. Multiple
agencies with inconsistent objectives obscure line of site to the business case argument.
1.1.Key success factors

 A national legislative head of power for source protection activities provides the necessary
framework to enable source protection by water utilities and agencies
 Clear state based planning and enforcement powers for water utilities enable increased
control over existing and emerging development in open catchments
 Recognition early in planning processes for source water catchment protection
Rapid stocktake
1.2.Recommendations
 That water utilities in Australia consider a submission during periodic reviews of the ADWG
to further strengthen the case for, and recognition of, source catchment protection and
management programs.
 In Australia there is a need for, and a potential legislative mechanism available to, set
minimum regulatory water quality objectives and requirement(s) for source catchment
protection at a federal level. This approach could also codify catchment management as a
key driver for water source protection. Such a mechanism could also be supported by a
specific funding program, based on learnings from other such programs around the world
including the US section 319 program under the CWA.
 There is also a need for advocacy in relation to the regulatory powers available at the state
level in Australia to address non-point source pollution. As is the case in the US there is an
opportunity to increase political support for legislative and other mechanisms to tackle this
highly significant water quality issue in open water supply catchments. Equally there is
significant scope to advocate and secure adequate funding for the range of programs
necessary to address this multi-faceted problem.
 In the US there is an opportunity to build on the emerging work by organisations to leverage

the strengths of both the CWA and SDWA to help protect drinking water. There also appear
to be opportunities to examine interagency interactions (between both national and state
agencies, as well as agencies within a given state) to improve coordination, consistency,
information sharing and efficiency of source catchment initiatives.
Rapid stocktake
Bibliography
8.1 General references

Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S. and Stenger, A. (2011). The effect of forest land use on the cost of drinking water
supply: a spatial econometric analysis. EAAE 2011 Congress. Zurich, Switzerland.
ABS. (2003). Year Book Australia 2003 1301.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Bennett , G. and Carroll, N. (2014). Gaining Depth: State of Watershed Investment 2104. A report by
Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace.
Bohensky, Connell., & Taylor. (2009). Experiences with integrated river basin management: lessons for
northern Australia Chapter 22. In Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review full report.
Canberra: CSIRO.
Deer D, Guice J, Miller R (2008) Risk assessment for Drinking Water Sources, WQRA Research Report
78, WQRA, Adelaide.
DEH. (1999). Inquiry into catchment management, Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH), Canberra.
Department of Water. (2012). Operational policy 13: Recreation within public drinking water source areas on
Crown land. Perth: Department of Water.
Edeson, G. (2015). Updating integrated catchment management to improve the climate resilience of water
dependent communities, Water, AWA, Vol 42 No 1.
Ernst, C. and Hart, K. (2005). Path to protection - ten strategies for successful source water protection. San
Fransisco: Trust for Public Land.
Fiquepron, J., Garcia, S. and Stenger, A. (2011). Land use impact on water quality: Valuing the forest water
service from the water supply sector. Mimeo LEF.
Ford B (2008) Introduction. In Watershed Management for Drinking Water Protection.

American Waterworks Association and Australian Water Association.
Freeman, J., Madsen, R. and Hart, K. (2008). Statistical analysis of drinking water treatment plant costs, source
water quality, and land cover characteristics. Trust for Public Land.
Freeman, J., Madsen, R. and Hart, K. (2013). Section 1.1: Source Water Quality and Drinking Water Costs. In T.
Gartner, J. Mulligan, R. Schmidt, and J. Gunn, Natural infrastructure: investing in forested landscapes
for source water protection in the United States. Washington DC: WRI.
Gartner, T., Mulligan, J., Schmidt, R. and Gunn, J. (2013). Natural infrastructure: investing in forested
landscapes for source water protection in the United States. Washington DC: WRI.
Guice, J., Miller, R. and Deere, D. (2009). Risk assessment for drinking water supplies. Adelaide: CRC for water
quality and research. Report 78.
Rapid stocktake
Holmes, T.P. (1988). The offsite impact of soil erosion on the water treatment industry. Land Economics, 64(4),
356–366.
Hrudey, S. and Hrudey, E. (2004). Safe drinking water. Lessons from recent outbreaks in affluent nations.
International Water Association Publishing.
Marsden Jacob Associates. (2014). Review of Public Drinking Water Source Areas (PDWSA) Policy. Melbourne.
Marsden Jacob Associates. (2014). The economic value of watershed services provided by Victoria's Parks
Network. Melbourne: Parks Victoria.
McInnes, R., de Groot, J., Plant, R., Chong, J. and Olszak, C. (2010) Managing catchments as business assets: an
economic framework for evaluating control measures for source water protection. Research report no.
83. Water Quality Research Australia, Adelaide.
Miller, R., Guice, J. and Deere, D. (2009). Risk assessment for drinking water sources. Adelaide: Research
Report 78.
Mulligan, J. (2013). Section 3.1: “Hotspot” Watersheds—Identifying the Opportunity. In: T. Gartner, J. Mulligan,
R. Schmidt and J. Gunn, Natural infrastructure: investing in forested landscapes for source water
protection in the United States. Washington DC: WRI.
NHMRC/NRMMC (2011). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Water Quality Management Strategy,
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)/Natural Resource Management Ministerial
Council (NRMMC), AUstralian Government, Version 3.1 March 2015.
NWC. (2011). Territory Plan (including water use and catchment policies). National Water Commission,
Canberra. Accessed at: archive.nwc.gov.au/home/water-governancearrangements-in-
australia/australian-capital-territory/water-quality-management/environmental-health-
management43/environmental-health-management-territory-plan
OFWAT (2012) Capex Bias in the water and sewerage sectors in England and Wales - substance, perception or
myth. A Discussion Paper, Ofwat, Birmingham.
Patterson, J., Smith, C. and Bellamy, J. (2013). Understanding enabling capacities for managing the 'wicked
problem' of non point source water pollution in catchments: A conceptual framework. Journal of
Environmental Management, 128, pp. 441‒452.
Postel, S., and Thompson, B. (2005). Watershed protection: capturing the benefits of nature's water supply
services. Natural Resoures Forum, (29) 98-108.
Schmidt, R. and Mulligan, J. (2013). Section 1.3: Demonstrations of the Business Case. In T. Gartner, J.
Mulligan, R. Schmidt, & J. Gunn, Natural infrastructure: investing in forested landscapes for source
water protection in the United States. Washington DC: WRI.
Sears, A. (2011). The influence of land cover on drinking water quality and treatment cost. Raleigh, North
Carolina: North Carolina State University.
Sklener, K., Sham, C.H. and Gullick, R.W. (2012). Developing a vision and roadmap for source water protection
for US drinking water utilities. Water Research Foundation.
Rapid stocktake
Talberth, J., Gray, E., Yonavjak, L. and Gartner, T. (2011). Section 1.2: Green-Gray Analysis. In: T. Gartner, J.
Mulligan, R. Schmidt and J. Gunn, Natural Infrastructure: Investing in Forested Landscapes for Source
Water Protection in the United States. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
TPL. (2004). Protecting the source: Land conservation and the future of America's drinking water, Trust for
Public Land.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. Washington DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
UNEP. (2014). Green infrastructure guide for water management: ecosystem based approaches for water-
related infrastructure projects. United Nations Environment Program.
Warner (2013). Discussion paper – shaping our water future. Submission on Queensland’s water sector: a 30
year strategy, SEQ Catchments, Brisbane.
Water Ecoscience. (2002). Assessment of catchment risks to potable water supplies in the Moorabool
Shire.
WRF. 2015. Water Quality and Economic Benefits of Forested Watershed Protection, Water research
Foundation Project 4595. WRF, Denver, Colorado USA.
Zhang, Y. and Barten, P.K. (2009). Watershed Forest Management Information System (WFMIS). Environmental
Modelling & Software, 24(4), 569–575.
8.2 Monitoring and Evaluation references

AGLC (2009). NRM MERI Framework: Australian Government Natural Resource Management
Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework. Report published by the
Australian Government Land and Coasts Division under the Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra. 36pp.
Campos, J. and F. P. Coupal (1996). Participatory Evaluation. Report prepared for the UNDP.
DECC (2009) Evaluation framework for CMA natural resource management. Report published by the
NSW Government Department of Environment and Climate Change. 131pp.
DERM (2009). South East Queensland Natural Resource Management Plan 2009–2031 - Regional
targets to support the sustainability framework of the South East Queensland Regional Plan
2009–2031. Report published by the Queensland Government Department of Environment
and Resource Management.
DEWNR (2014). Science guidelines to support water allocation plans – ecology, hydrology and
hydrogeology Part 6: Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement. Government of
South Australia, through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources,
Adelaide.
DNRM (2013). Queensland Integrated Waterways Monitoring Framework. Report published by the
Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
Rapid stocktake
Estrella, M. and Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A
literature review. IDS Working Paper No 70, Brighton: IDS
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. London and California. Sage
Publications.
IFAD (nd). Managing for impact in rural development: a guide for project M&E. International
Federation of Agricultural Development.
IUCN (2001). The IUCN Evaluation policy 2001. Published by the International Union for Conservation
of Nature.
MDBA (2014). Murray–Darling Basin water reforms: Framework for evaluating progress. Report
published by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. 29pp.
Raymond, A. (2010). What is best practice monitoring and evaluation for Sustainability Victoria?
Report published by Sustainability Victoria. 36pp.
Territory NRM (2011). Northern Territory Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 2010-2015.
Territory NRM, Darwin.
Zammit, C, Cockfield, G and Funnell, S (2000). An outcomes-based guide for evaluating natural
resources management policies and programs. Land and Water Australia Social and
Institutional Research Program, 6.250/USQ3.
8.3 Case study references

ASDWA (2007). Information on Source Water Protection to assist State Drinking Water Programs.
Association for State Drinking Water Administrators, USA.
City of Whitefish (2015) Resolution No 15-04, City of Whitefish, Whitefish Montana.
Copeland (2014). Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law. Congressional Research Services Report,
CRS, Washington USA.
EPA (2013). Non-point Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA.
EPA (2014). Water Quality Standards Handbook. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
DC, USA.
Ford B (2008) Introduction. In Watershed Management for Drinking Water Protection. American
Waterworks Association and Australian Water Association.
Frontier Economics (2014) Improving economic regulation of urban water, A report prepared for
WSAA, August
Rapid stocktake
GWPC (2014). Opportunities to Protect Drinking Water Sources and Advance Watershed Goals
through the Clean Water Act: A toolkit for State, Interstate, Tribal and Federal Water
Program Managers. Ground Water Protection Council, USA
Legislative Council of WA (2010) Recreation Activities within Public Drinking Water Source Areas
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/(WebInquiries)/2367D34B5845C
685482578310040D2A5?opendocument
McKenzie P (2015) Haskill Basin Watershed: An Example of Cooperative Multi Use, FH Stolze Land
and Lumber Company.
New York City (2010) Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and
Pollution of the New York City Water Supply and its Sources. Final Regulations – Effective
May 1 1997 As Amended April 4, 2010, NYC, New York.
New South Wales Government (2011) State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water
Catchment) NSW Govt, Sydney.
NHMRC/NRMMC (2011). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Water Quality Management
Strategy, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)/Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), AUstralian Government, Version 3.1 March
2015.
NHMRC (2015). National Health and Medical Research Council Website. NHMRC, Australian
Government Canberra.
Melbourne Water (2015) 2016 Price Review Consultation Paper, Melbourne Water, Melbourne.
Protect Haskill Basin – Vote Yes for Water (2015) http://www.protectwhitefishwater.org , accessed
21/7/2015.
Sklenar, KS and Blake LJ (2010). Drinking Water Source Protection Through Effective Use of TDML
Processes. Water Research Foundation Report No. 4007. Water Research Foundation,
Denver USA.
Sydney Catchment Authority (2011) Neutral or Beneficial Effect on Water Quality Assessment
Guideline, SCA, Sydney.
Warne D (2015) New York City Water Source Protection Program. Presentation to the Source Water
Protection Workshop, May 2015, Melbourne.
Rapid stocktake
Attachment A
Investment drivers evidence base
Rapid stocktake
Table A1. Examples of cost effectiveness drivers for source water catchment management (an investment drivers evidence base)
Water issue Driver – source catchment protection increasingly stack up Country Source
Variable drinking The United States Environment Protection Agency has found US CBF (2012)
water treatment that every dollar spent to protect source water reduced water
costs treatment costs by an average USD$27.
1% increase in sediment or turbidity levels would lead to a US Freeman et al. (2013)
0.07–0.30% increase in variable water treatment costs. Forster et al. (1987) from
Holmes (1988)
Holmes (1998)
Dearmont et al. (1998)
Forster & Murray (2001)
An audit of Australia’s rivers in 2002 estimated that a 5% Australia ABS (2003)
increase in turbidity of Australian streams will increase water
treatment costs by at least $715M over the ensuing 20 years.
1% increase in forest area of water supply catchment (with France Abildtrup et al. (2011)
respect to agricultural or other areas) leads to a decrease of Fiquepron et al. (2011)
approximately €0.004‒€0.006 of water supply cost.
Economies of (customer) density may exist.
1% increase in non-forest vegetation land cover within 100- US Freeman et al. (2008)
foot buffer zone resulted from 2.83% to 51.82% decrease in Sears (2011)
treatment cost. Similarly, 1% increase in urban land cover
resulted from 2.15% to 51.39% increase in treatment cost.
If incoming raw water quality is high, treatment plants may be Freeman et al. (2013)
able to bypass some of the processes in conventional Holmes (1988)
treatment avoid capital costs for treatment processes like
flocculation and sedimentation.
Fixed drinking Treatment plants may be able to bypass some of the US Holmes (1988)
water treatment processes in conventional treatment. Cooperative Research
costs Raw turbidity levels <>10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units Center (2003) in Freeman
(NTUs) added a separation process, such as sedimentation or et al. (2013)
flotation (i.e. conventional versus direct filtration process). Freeman et al. (2008)
Melbourne is one of five cities in the world with closed AUS Hrudey & Hrudey (2004)
catchments, it has a long history of restricting access to its
water supply catchments and reservoirs. As a result, only 20%
of Victoria’s water requires full treatment. Its long detention
time reservoir system allowed it to operate a public surface
with no treatment, not even chlorination until 1976.
Comparison of avoided construction of filtration plants for US Postel & Thompson (2005)
seven US cities, capital costs only avoided capital cost per
capita $108‒$1647.
Dam storage Higher dead to active storage reduced sedimentation in US Freeman et al. (2013)
source water also prevents sediment build up in reservoirs Marsden Jacob Associates
over time, thereby maintaining critical water storage capacity (2014)
and reducing dredging costs. In extreme cases, sedimentation
in source water can clog water intakes, posing additional
repair and maintenance costs for a water utility or other
water user.
Drinking water Significant portion of the drinking water quality incidents had Various Hrudey & Hrudey (2004)
incidence risks the origin of the contamination tracked to the source water.
Rapid stocktake
Attachment B
Statutory and executive order requirements for water quality
Rapid stocktake
Table B1. Statutory and executive order requirements for water quality1
Regulation Country/ Level What it does Source water protection Administered by Reference
State (institutional context)
Safe Drinking US Federal Under the federal SWDA, all drinking water Source water protection is voluntary and U.S. Environmental (Mulligan,
Water Act taken from surface water sources must be implemented at the local level without additional Protection Agency, which 2013)
filtered to remove microbial contaminants. federal mandate or funding support. delegates significant
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are set regulatory authority to
by EPA to determine the amount of a the states.
substance that is allowed in public water
systems. Typical contaminants include arsenic,
chlorine and E. coli.
Clean Water Act US Federal Section 402 of the CWA allows states, with EPA U.S. Environmental (Mulligan,
approval, to establish procedures for Protection Agency, which 2013)
permitting point-source effluent discharges. delegates significant
Under § 303 of the Act, approved states must regulatory authority to
establish water quality standards (WQS) under the states.
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
When an NPDES permit has been issued,
waterbodies are monitored to determine
whether the state WQS are being met.
EPA 1989 Surface US Federal The rule waives public water systems from U.S. Environmental (Talberth et al.,
Water Treatment requirements to install filtration systems as Protection Agency, which 2011)
Rule long as concentrations of turbidity and either delegates significant
fecal or total coliform are maintained at or regulatory authority to
below regulatory baselines through land use the states.
practices upstream.
1 https://www.awa.asn.au/WMLP_background_information.aspx?LangType=3081
Rapid stocktake
EPA Groundwater US Federal
Rule2
State Law US State States have regulations that protect water quality. (Mulligan,
These range from best management requirements 2013)
for practices on working lands to very specific land
use restrictions. Some states have land use acts of
statewide application that regulate major
development in ways that have an impact on
water quality. In all states, state law enables
municipalities through zoning to regulate
development and use along waterways and within
flood zones. Many municipalities require setbacks
and buffers between certain types of development
and streams. Some municipalities are required to
regulate along waterways under state law.
Control of recreational activities on surface
catchments has historically been dependent upon
local regulators and water providers.
The Australian AUS Commonwealth The Framework outlines a quality management Identifies that prevention of contamination (Gruice et al.,
Drinking Water approach to ensure water quality is protected provides greater surety than removal of 2009)
Guidelines from catchment to tap. contaminants by treatment.
ADWG does not set mandatory standards. The Identifies that the most important barrier in water
Guidelines provide a basis for determining the quality protection is the effective protection of the
quality of water to be supplied to consumers in source or catchment
all parts of Australia.
2 Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule; Final Rule”. 8 November.
Rapid stocktake
State legislation AUS Western Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and These Acts, administered by the Department of (Marsden
and policy Australia Drainage Act 1909 Water, provide for special protection of drinking Jacob
Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 water resources via proclamation of catchment Associates,
2004 Water Quality Protection Note3 areas, water reserves and underground water 2014)
pollution control areas (collectively known as (Department of
Western Australian Planning Commission’s
public drinking water source areas - PDWSAs). Water, 2012)
Statement of Planning Policy No 2.7 –
By-laws, made under these Acts, apply in http://www.wa
Public Drinking Water Source Policy
proclaimed PDWSAs for the purpose of protecting ter.wa.gov.au/
water quality. The by-laws can restrict the use of Managing+wat
potentially harmful substances and control the er/Drinking+wa
way potentially contaminating activities are ter/default.asp
undertaken. x
They also prohibit or restrict public access to some
areas and the department’s permission may be
required to undertake activities in a PDWSA.
AUS ACT Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Act The ACT has overall (NWC, 2011)
1974 management
Territory Plan is prepared under the Planning responsibility for water
and Development Act 2007 supply and land
management within the
Googong Dam Area
Queensland Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 1997 The Water Act 2000 provides for the development The Department of (Marsden
Water Act 2000 of catchment-based water resource plans and Energy and Water Supply Jacob
resource operation plans which are designed for focus is on innovative Associates,
3Department of Water. 2004. “Land use compatibility in PDWSAs.” Water Quality Protection Note 25. July. Perth. Available at
http://www.water.wa.gov.au/Managing+water/Water+quality/Water+quality+protection+notes/default.aspx
Rapid stocktake
Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 the allocation and sustainable management of policy, planning and 2014)
State Planning Policy (2013) - State interests, water resources to meet future requirements, regulatory solutions in
water quality and water supply. including the protection of natural ecosystems and partnership with
Seqwater Development Guidelines: stakeholders to support
security of supply to water users.
Development Guidelines for Water Quality cost-effective, safe,
Management in Drinking Water Catchments secure and reliable
The South East Queensland Water (Restructuring)
2012 energy and water supply.
Act 2007 – the legislation that creates Seqwater
South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Under the South East
identifies that The Authority has the following Queensland Water
Act 2007
functions to the extent they are consistent with its (Restructuring) Act 2007,
South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 - operational and strategic plans— Seqwater gained
2031 (SEQRP)
responsibility for the
( e) improving the supply, delivery and quality of management of a
water, including by way of— number of bulk water
assets and storages in
(i) riverine area protection; and South East Queensland
(SEQ).
(ii) soil erosion control; and
South East Queensland
(iii) land degradation treatment and prevention; has open catchments
and which are open to public
access with a variety of
(iv) nutrient management; and urban, peri-urban,
recreational and
(v) vegetation management; agricultural pursuits being
undertaken. Seqwater
(f) using or managing its land in ways that benefit owns a very small
percentage of the total
the community, including for recreational
catchment area.
purposes;
Water service providers
determine suitable land
The Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008
uses in dam and
– provides a mechanism to develop Drinking Water
Rapid stocktake
Quality Management Plans for water supply areas. groundwater catchments.
Seqwater has no formal referral role under the Local governments retain
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for development in land-use planning
source catchments and relies on the State Planning responsibilities which is
Policy (SPP) which lists state interests including delivered through
water supply and quality. The SPP has provisions planning schemes.
during plan making and interim development
assessment provisions which relies on the Traditionally, local
Seqwater development guidelines4 governments in
Queensland have been
The State Planning Policy (2013) states that responsible for the supply
development decisions in catchment areas should of reticulated
consider “water supply infrastructure and protect urban water and
sewerage service delivery
from encroachment from sensitive uses”
within their jurisdictions
but this has been
Additionally, planning must consider the total
transferred to retailers
water cycle, and ensure that critical water sources, including QUU and
physical treatment and supply infrastructure are Linkwater following water
considered. One of the key land development reforms under the South-
concerns is the reduction of contamination or East Queensland Water
pollution in stormwater. (Distribution and Retail
Restructuring) Act 2009.
The SEQRP is important for the management of
4
Seqwater. 2012. “Seqwater Development Guidelines: Guidelines for Water Quality Management in Drinking Water Catchments”.
Brisbane, QLD. P6.
Rapid stocktake
the region’s water resources through statutory
regional land use categories which are binding on
local governments, state agencies and developers.
It has chapters on both infrastructure and water
and includes regulatory provisions which restrict
development and subdivision in water supply
catchments.
Under the EPP (Water), environmental values of

waters are to be enhanced or protected through
water quality guidelines which target activities in
the catchment that are likely to adversely affect
the quality of stormwater runoff and hence the
quality of the receiving waters.
Local governments use planning schemes to guide

and control how development occurs across their
area. The planning scheme seeks to advance state
and regional policies through more detailed local
responses, taking into account the local context.
Northern The Darwin River Dam Catchment provides 90% of

Territory potable water to the Darwin region. The Darwin
River Catchment has been closed since operations
began in 1972 and relies on the ecosystem services
to provide high quality raw water. Public access is
prohibited at all times. As a result of a closed
catchment, Darwin River dam is recognised as
having high biodiversity conservation value
protected through management plans.
South Australia Safe Drinking Water Act 2011 Limited to unprotected. Local council
Historically, settlement and agricultural The South Australian
Rapid stocktake
development were given priority over the need to Water Corporation does
maintain catchments for water supplies. As such, not own or manage the
SA Water does not own or directly manage the catchments as most are
majority of its catchment areas. The 2010 WA private agricultural,
parliamentary enquiry noted that as catchments industrial or residential
are unprotected, SA Water has high levels of land. The Corporation’s
investments in end treatment processes and hands are tied, it has only
catchments. “non-binding input into
local council
development plans”. It is
unable to drive or
substantially influence
existing land use and
management. The
Corporation invests
money in “education and
incentives as it has no
alternative and no direct
responsibility for
managing the
catchments”.
NSW (Sydney) State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney The Sydney Catchment Authority prevents access The management of the
Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 to their ‘Special Areas 1’. Some fishing and boating water supply for the
is permitted on emergency sources and all sources Sydney Metropolitan
have downstream filtration treatment. areas falls under the
Since 2006 State policy has required that all same policy principles as
development in the Sydney catchment area, which rural NSW, but is centrally
excludes the zones applied around key dams coordinated and
where no development is permitted, has a “neutral managed by the Sydney
or beneficial effect on water quality” (NorBE). Catchment Authority
NorBE is satisfied if the proposed development (or (SCA). The SCA subscribes
activity) : to the statewide principle
of sustainable and
Rapid stocktake
 has no identifiable potential impact on water integrated management
quality of the state’s water for
 will contain any water quality impact on the present and future
development site and prevent it from generations
reaching any watercourse, water body or
drainage depression on the site
 will transfer any water quality impact
outside the site where it is treated and
disposed of to standards approved of by the
consent authority.
Victoria Victoria’s Waterways Management Strategy Melbourne is one of five cities in the world with Local councils administer
describes the approaches to meet the closed catchments. It has a long history of the changes in the use or
requirements regulated by the Victorian Water restricting access to its water supply catchments development of the land
Act 1989 5, and the Catchment and Land and reservoirs affecting waterways,
Protection Act, 1994 6. The Safe Drinking Water Much of Melbourne’s water supply catchment is including in open potable
Act 2003 sets out obligation Victorian water wholly publicly owned, and public access is water supply catchment
corporations have and Safe Drinking Water Act completely prohibited or restricted across 160,000 areas.
Regulations 2015 provide detail for how these ha of uninhabited, forested catchments North East
obligations are achieved. of the city. As a result the water from these
sources requires only disinfection.
The State Environment Protection Policy There are however also many “open” catchment
Waters of Victoria (SEPP(WoV)) is also areas with private ownership and unrestricted
significant, requiring agencies such as access. Development on these areas is limited by a
5 Department of Environment and Primary Industry, Victoria. (2013). Victorian Waterway Management Strategy. Available at Department of Environment and Primary Industries,
Victoria. http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/water. Accessed 3 June 2014. P5.
6 Ibid.
Rapid stocktake
Melbourne Water to play a role in meeting permit application process under guidelines
particular water quality standards and defined in the 2012 Planning Permit Applications in
supporting ‘beneficial uses’. open, potable water supply catchment areas. The
guidelines only apply when a permit is required
under the P&E Act and the land is within a
Declared Water Supply Catchment. The guidelines
are also not binding, they apply “should” not
“must”
Rapid stocktake
Attachment C
NRM MERI Framework
70
NRM MERI Program logic
Program logic is the rationale behind a program—what are understood to be the cause-and-effect relationships
between program activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes and longer-term desired outcomes. Program logic shows
a series of expected consequences, not just a sequence of events.
A program logic for NRM in Australia is represented in Figure C1. It reflects the reality that many desired changes in
NRM asset condition may occur over much longer timeframes (possibly 20 to 50 years) than investment cycles.
Actions can be guided through regular reflection on the accuracy of the assumptions underpinning the program logic.
The NRM program logic set out in Figure C1 was developed based on assumptions about the series of consequences
that are likely to lead to positive outcomes in the condition of NRM assets. This logic underpins the NRM MERI
Framework and acknowledges that NRM operates at a range of scales and over different timeframes:
 foundational activities—activities to inform investment, including planning, benchmarking, assessment and

prioritisation
 immediate activities and outcomes—easily identifiable activities and related immediate goods, services and
infrastructure
 intermediate outcomes—a combination of biophysical and non-biophysical results that lead to change by
way of maintenance of and/or improvement in NRM asset condition
 longer term outcomes—tangible and measurable changes resulting from maintenance of and/or
improvement in NRM assets, including NRM organisations and institutions.
71
Source: AGLC (2009)
Figure C1. Natural resource management program logic
72
It is important to note that the outcomes are often iterative and occur at multiple or varying timeframes for different
classes of assets. The NRM program logic set out in Figure C1 acknowledges that to achieve and adequately report on
desired outcomes there must be a focus on both the means and the ends.
There are two important investment streams in NRM:
1. investment in biophysical outcomes—ends
2. investment in social, institutional and economic outcomes—means to achieve biophysical outcomes.
It will always be necessary to invest in the management of resources and natural environments to ensure that threats
and pressures are reduced and that these assets are protected and enhanced. Continuous investment in both social
and institutional assets, as well as the targeted biophysical assets, is required to enable and sustain the desired
outcomes.
Principles
Five key principles underpin the NRM MERI Framework:
3. NRM interventions encompass a range of temporal scales (up to 50 years or more), and institutional and
spatial scales. Assessment of performance of NRM interventions should acknowledge this range of scales and
use logic-based approaches to measuring and reporting
4. evaluation of NRM programs should incorporate assessment of multiple lines of quantitative and qualitative
evidence about both the state and trend of identified NRM assets and key aspects of program performance
which describe the causal links between what a program has achieved and how the achievements were
accomplished
5. establishing and fostering a constructive partnership among all partners in NRM is essential both for
generating evaluation recommendations and for ensuring their uptake and ownership
6. effective NRM rests on meaningful and efficient partnership arrangements and evaluations that are
recognised by stakeholders as being well informed, relevant and timely, and are clearly and concisely
presented
7. establishing effective evaluation methods and feedback loops from evaluation to policy makers, operational
staff and the community is essential if evaluation lessons are to be learned, recommendations adopted and
the required changes and program improvements made.
The NRM MERI Framework aims to:
 make the links between the planning process, monitoring and evaluation activities, and adaptive
management in NRM explicit
 provide a structure to inform the development of clear evaluation questions in relation to the impact,
appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and legacy of NRM policies, programs and initiatives
 inform the development of logical investment strategies across scales and across timeframes, including
setting achievable targets
 improve capacity to report on NRM program performance
 improve analysis of the successes and shortcomings of strategies, to improve the performance of programs,
initiatives and projects and to enable development of better instruments and policies for sustainable
resource management.
73
NRM MERI plan approach
The NRM MERI plan approach is based on a theory of change that models the steps involved in moving from the
current situation to the desired outcomes of investment and activities. It is underpinned by continuous tracking, which
provides information to help steer a policy, program or priority area in the desired direction.
When developing a MERI plan it is useful to identify boundaries, such as:
 What will be evaluated?
 Who is the evaluation for?
 What is the purpose of the evaluation and who will and will not be involved?
 What are the available and required resources (including access to research and scientific data) and
information required to enable strategic reflection on progress and to generate adaptive practices?
Table C1 describes the key steps in developing a MERI plan. Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement are
iterative activities undertaken throughout the planning, design and implementation of policies and programs.
Table C1. Key steps in developing a MERI plan
Key steps Outputs

Program logic  Desired changes, and the types and extent of changes expected at different scales
 Key assumptions about how change will occur
 Anticipated outputs and outcomes
 Key evaluation questions and methods
 Specified targets for outcomes
 Performance indicators, both qualitative and quantitative
Monitoring  Relevant data
 Reflection on results of monitoring
 Strategies for program improvement
Evaluation and reporting  Impact appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and legacy assessed at different
stages of the program to determine immediate, intermediate and longer-term
outcomes
 Output reports
 Financial reports
 Outcomes reports
 Communications and reports on evaluation results as required to internal
stakeholders and key external stakeholders
Improvement and adaptive  Reflection on what is working and what is not working based on monitoring data and
management evaluation reports
 Changes to program direction or arrangements based on reflection on monitoring
results and outcome reports
Source: AGLC (2009)
The program logic lays the foundation for learning about which strategies have the most impact and adapting in
response to that information. It provides a theory of change that can be tested. It also helps to determine when and
74
what to evaluate so that resources can be used effectively and efficiently. A logic model assists in developing
appropriate process and outcome measures.
Program logic as described in Table C2 comprises a hierarchy of expected NRM outcomes at different temporal scales.
The logic provides the basis for informing decision making at various scales. The generic NRM outcome hierarchy
described in Table C2 provides an illustration of the types of outcomes that could be expected at each level of the
hierarchy.
It is important to understand the distinction between an outcome and a target. An outcome refers to the results
achieved at the defined levels of the outcomes hierarchy in the program logic. A target is a specified objective that
indicates the number, timing and location of that which is to be realised for a policy, program or activity (IFAD nd).
75
Table C2. Generic NRM outcome hierarchy
Outcome hierarchy Outcome description Associated target

Aspirational Vision for the asset Statement of the overall vision for the No targets at this level
program state of the asset in 50 years. This
goal statement helps guide program planned
and provides a context for setting other
targets
Longer term Improvements in the state Expected outcomes relating to the Usually longer-term targets
outcome of the asset condition of the biophysical, institutional at a broad geographic level
and social assets as a result of intervention
Aggregate changes in how Changes in management practices resulting Intermediate targets (e.g.
the asset is managed and in impact on asset condition across a percentage of land
affected region protected or managed in a
Intermediate A reduction in pressures on and threats to certain way over five years)
outcome the asset
Practice and attitude change Adoption of best practice or sustainable Immediate and
management practices intermediate targets (e.g.
Enhanced knowledge, aspirations, skills, percentage of
attitudes and/or confidence land/resource managers or
Institutional and organisational change, as communities that adopt
reflected in corporate policy, business sustainable management
practices, laws and infrastructure practices)
Biophysical outputs Deliverables that are related to immediate Output targets (e.g. number
on-ground results as set out in investment of hectares of land
Immediate plans and funding agreements revegetation or enhanced)
activities and
outcomes
Non-biophysical outputs Deliverables that are related to immediate Output targets (e.g. number
social, institutional, cultural or economic of community plans,
results as set out in investment plans and number of participants in
funding agreements training workshops, or
number of incentives
projects funded)
Foundational Project activities Activities that largely concern the Output targets (e.g. number
activities development of NRM strategies and of community workshops
investment plans. These include: conducted or number of
 conducting baseline assessments and educational resources
analysing program evaluation results developed)
 Building skills and developing
knowledge base
 developing institutional frameworks,
plans and strategies
 undertaking community consultation
 consulting and/or commissioning
scientific research
Source: AGLC (2009)
76
Monitoring
Monitoring involves the collection and analysis of information to assist timely decision-making, ensure accountability
and provide the basis for evaluation and learning. It is a continuing function. Methodical collection of data provides
management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing project or program with early indications of progress and
achievement of objectives (IFAD nd). Monitoring data informs continual, broad-scale assessment in order to address
key evaluation questions.
Asset monitoring
Asset monitoring refers to a process of continually assessing the state of and change over time in NRM assets—
human, social, natural, physical and financial. Continuous assessment of the state of and change over time in assets in
NRM programs and priority areas:
 provides details on joint investment for the collection, interpretation and reporting of asset state and trend
data
 provides information about how data will be exchanged and used, through NRM asset condition data storage
and management systems
 identifies assets and indicators consistent with the requirements and policies of NRM partners
 identifies custodianship and a single point of contact for fundamental NRM data.
Program performance monitoring

Monitoring program performance in accordance with the NRM MERI Framework involves assessing outcomes from
program investments over designated timeframes. Monitoring in this context:
 includes assessment of immediate, intermediate and longer term outcomes as a means of measuring
progress towards desired goals for asset condition
 makes continual assessment, learning and adaptive management integral parts of all programs
 supports regular reporting to stakeholders and investors.
Where possible and relevant, monitoring reports should include spatial data that are consistent with the investment
design and program logic.
Evaluation
Evaluation in the NRM context encompasses periodic assessment of the appropriateness of a policy, program or
project ‘through a set of applied research techniques to generate systematic information that can help improve
performance’ (IUCN, 2001). It includes formal external, independent evaluations and ‘self-evaluation processes which
can help to build an internal culture of reflection and evaluation, as well as stronger ownership of the results’ (IUCN,
2001).
To improve program design and delivery, reorient investment during the life of the program, and fulfil accountability
requirements, evaluations that report on outcomes should be planned to inform key decision points throughout the
life of the program and at the end to collate learning and inform future programs. The NRM MERI Framework provides
for evaluation to test the causal links between outcome levels.
Monitoring and evaluation plans should address questions under five key categories. The key categories and
associated questions are:
77
 Appropriateness
− To what extent is the program aligned with the needs of the intended beneficiaries?
− To what extent is the program compliant with recognised best practice processes in the field—e.g. the
type, level and context of investment and associated activities?
 Impact
− In what ways and to what extent has the program or initiative contributed to changing asset condition
and management practices and institutions?
− What, if any, unanticipated positive or negative changes or other outcomes have resulted?
− To what extent were the changes directly or indirectly produced by the program interventions?
 Effectiveness
− To what extent have the planned activities and outputs been achieved?
− Are current activities the best way to maximise impact or are there other strategies that might be
more effective?
− To what extent is the program attaining, or expected to attain, its objectives efficiently and in a way
that is sustainable?
 Efficiency
− To what extent has the program attained the highest value out of available resources?
− How could resources be used more productively and efficiently?
− What could be done differently to improve implementation, and thereby maximise impact, at an
acceptable and sustainable cost?
 Legacy
− Will the program’s impacts continue over time and after the program ceases?
− How should the legacy be managed and by whom?
Reporting
Specific reports are required to show the degree to which investment or intervention achieves progress towards
targets and outcomes. They also show whether there have been expected or unexpected impacts at different time
intervals, and serve to meet accountability requirements. Table C3 provides an overview of some suggested types of
reports to address the key evaluation questions.
Output and financial reports satisfy the governance requirements of funding agencies. They indicate the tangible,
immediate and intended results produced through sound management of the agreed inputs. Examples of outputs
include goods, services and infrastructure produced by a program or project and meant to help realise its purpose.
These may also include changes resulting from an intervention that are needed to achieve the outcomes at the
purpose level (adapted from IFAD nd).
Outcome reporting should incorporate multiple lines of evidence from the governance reports and from a range of
sources including research and large-scale data sources. Determining roles and responsibilities for coordination of
data collection, data analysis and communication of results should be a priority at every level at which MERI occurs.
78
MERI is concerned with reporting on outcomes and progress towards outcomes. Reporting for purposes of
determining efficiency and ensuring accountability are also important to demonstrate prudent and responsible
investment of funds in meeting relevant contracted obligations. Reporting requirements should be detailed in
implementation plans and other documents as agreed between program partners.
Table C3. Key MERI evaluation questions and possible methods and data sources
Evaluation questions Suggested method or data source Report

Appropriateness Needs analysis techniques Needs assessment
To what extent is the program aligned with the Expert review Output reports
needs of the intended beneficiaries? Participatory planning Financial statements
To what extent is the program compliant with Social, environmental and/or Outcome reports incorporating
recognised best practice processes in the field— integrated impact assessment program performance data and
e.g the type, level and context of investment and Internal reflection on processes asset state and change over
associated activities? and outcomes time data
Periodic independent evaluation
Impact Monitoring condition of assets Program performance outcome
In what ways and to what extent has the program Internal reflection on processes reports, including asset state
or initiative contributed to changing asset and outcomes and change over time at area of
condition and management practices and Periodic independent evaluation investment, and incorporating
institutions? output data
What, if any, unanticipated positive or negative Periodic independent program
changes or other outcomes have resulted? evaluation report
To what extent were the changes directly or
indirectly produced by the program interventions?
Effectiveness Program logic Milestone reports and
To what extent have the planned activities and Research and large-scale data amended plans
outputs been achieved? Why or why not? sources Output reports
Are current activities the best way to maximise Internal reflection on processes Reports on program
impact or are there other strategies that might be and outcomes performance outcomes
more effective? Periodic independent evaluation including asset state and
To what extent is the program attaining, or change over time at area of
expected to attain, its objectives efficiently and in investment
a way that is sustainable? Periodic independent program
evaluation report
Efficiency Auditing Reports on program
To what extent has the program attained the Internal reflection on processes performance outcomes
highest value out of available resources? and outcomes including asset state and
How could resources be used more productively Periodic independent evaluation change over time at area of
and efficiently? investment
What could be done differently to improve Evaluation recommendations
implementation, and thereby maximise impact, at
an acceptable and sustainable cost?
Legacy Participatory planning and Reports on program
Will the program’s impacts continue over time and monitoring performance outcomes
after the program ceases? Internal reflection on processes including asset state and
How and by whom should the legacy be managed? and outcomes change over time at area of
Periodic independent evaluation investment
Evaluation recommendations
Source: AGLC (2009)
79
Improvement
Improvement results from continuous review, learning and adaptation. In the NRM context, a learning environment
needs to be created where all parties are encouraged to reflect critically on the efficacy of particular strategies,
investments and activities. Critical reflection enables those involved in a program to learn from mistakes, to generate
ideas for making improvements, and to provide strategic and operational guidance.
The NRM MERI Framework recommends that NRM programs incorporate, as a priority, regular assessment of
progress towards outcomes to determine what is working and what is not. Program improvement then becomes
standard practice as participants are increasingly aware of how to adapt for continuous improvement.
NRM assets and indicators

Setting goals and targets for NRM asset condition is an essential component of MERI, although it can be challenging.
Target and goal setting requires baseline condition information, but such information is often limited. Quantitative
and qualitative information needs to be considered when making investment prioritisation decisions. However, in
many instances, changes as a result of investment are only apparent in the long term, and will be influenced by factors
that go beyond program funding cycles. The coarse scale at which the state of and change over time in NRM asset
condition are monitored does not always correspond to the scale of investment. The assumptions made about the
likely effects of management actions will, of necessity, be influenced by these temporal and spatial issues. In
response, NRM plans will need to be refined over time as information about ecological and supporting social and
economic processes improves.
Setting targets at all levels of the program logic, using agreed indicators and associated protocols6 for monitoring and
reporting on progress:
 promotes consistency in setting and measuring progress towards targets within and across regions
 facilitates reporting on progress towards outcomes at all jurisdictional levels
 allows comparison of program achievements with assessments of condition or trends in NRM assets
 facilitates a learning environment in which program managers and participants adapt practices, strategies
and investment plans for continuous improvement.
Progress towards targets must be reviewed regularly to ensure that targets are relevant and appropriate and to
inform an adaptive management approach. Reviews should aim to illustrate trends and changes in NRM practices,
asset condition and ecosystem function. They will thus contribute to the development of the body of scientific
knowledge about how to effect change in the condition of assets.
Targets
In the NRM MERI Framework, there are three types of targets:
8. Aspirational targets—broad statements about the desired condition of NRM assets in the longer term
9. Longer-term targets—specific time-bound and measurable targets, usually relating to maintenance of and/or
improvement in the state and trend of identified classes of NRM assets
10. Immediate/intermediate targets—targets relating to management activities, capacity building and/or

intermediate outcomes including change by way of maintenance of and/or improvement in NRM asset
condition.
80
Performance of management actions will be reported at the intermediate outcome level to demonstrate progress
towards the longer-term outcomes. When establishing program plans, NRM organisations should set targets
consistent with agreed classes of NRM assets that are relevant to their particular context.
Indicators
Indicators enable the monitoring of asset state and change over time and form the basis of a logical monitoring
framework at a range of scales. Significant changes in the condition of some assets may not be measurable for periods
ranging from five to 50 years. However, NRM interventions undertaken by government and partner land management
agencies are usually structured as programs of between five and seven years’ duration. Processes to measure and
report changes in asset state and trends and the performance of NRM interventions therefore need to encompass a
range of time scales. Recognising this, the MERI approach introduces reporting to reflect logical progress towards
longer-term targets.
Indicators should be selected according to the principles of cost, simplicity, consistency and practicality as well as their
capacity to deliver information across the full land management unit scale. Indicators at the area of investment are
necessary for monitoring the results of a specific activity. ‘Surrogate indicators’ may be developed to monitor the
performance of an activity where asset condition monitoring is non-existent or not appropriate.
81
Melbourne Office
Suite 802, Level 8, 401 Dockland Drive
Docklands VIC 3008
Phone: (03) 8605 7666
Fax: (03) 8605 7612
Sydney Office
Level 11, 39 Martin Place

Melbourne Office
Sydney
Level 8, 401 Docklands NSW 200
Drive
Docklands GPO Box 915

Melbourne VIC 3008
Sydney NSW 2001
Phone: (03) 8605 7666
Phone: (02) 9221 5966
Fax: (03) 8605 7611
Fax: (02) 9221 5977
www.wsaa.asn.au
Sydney Office
Suite 1, Level 30,
9 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 915

Sydney NSW 2001
Phone: (02) 9221 5966

Fax: (02) 9221 5977
www.wsaa.asn.au
Page | 82

Part B Rapid Stocktake and Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part B Rapid Stocktake and Case Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part B Rapid Stocktake and Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source catchments as water quality

treatment assets: Industry best practice and

Rapid Stocktake and

 Most responses to catchment challenges have involved increased expenditure on traditional

3 Water industry drivers for source catchment management 14

4 Critical catchment management program success factors 16

5 Critical barriers to catchment management implementation 21

6 Building the business case 22

7 Monitoring and evaluating catchment intervention outcomes 28

8 Summary of key findings and next steps 30

Engaging with customers about catchments 30

Attachment A Investment drivers evidence base 58

Attachment B Statutory and executive order requirements for water quality 60

Attachment C NRM MERI Framework 70

Table 2. Drivers of water source catchment management investment ............................................. 14

Table 3. Strategies for successful source water protection programs ............................................... 16

Table 6. Tiered process of risk assessment ........................................................................................... 26

Table 7. Summary of key findings of the rapid stocktake review ...................................................... 30

Table 2: Catchment summary .............................................................................................................. 41

2.1 Key terms

Investment Management Standard is a best-practice approach applied over the life of an

Exclusion zones and general land management

Benefits of exclusion zones Co-Benefits Costs

Native vegetation or forest conservation; native revegetation efforts or (re-) afforestation

Benefits of forests Co-Benefits Costs

Reconnecting rivers to floodplains

Wetlands restoration and conservation, and wetlands construction

Benefits of wetlands Co-Benefits Costs

Benefits of riparian buffers Co-Benefits Costs

4.1 Critical success factors

Table 3. Strategies for successful source water protection programs

Strategy EH WRF DEH

4.2 Catchment management frameworks

Adaptive Co-Management and Integrated Catchment Management have different underlying

Patterson et al. (2013) describes management of non-point pollution in catchments as a wicked

4.3 Stakeholder participation

to engender support for water source catchment protection and management.

 Effective landuse planning as a component of managing risks to water quality.

These case studies are further explored later in this report.

Influence level Why influence?

 uncertainty around relationships and lack of biophysical production relationships.

Tool What is it?

 outcomes need to be achieved at a range of spatial scales

 the condition of assets can be highly variable naturally

Theme Main elements Main findings

Relationship to the Influence Matrix

Figure 2: Melbourne water drainage and water services

Additional Australian context

Key Success Factors

a) has no identifiable potential impact on water quality, or

The principles underlying the guideline are that:

Benchmarking – A Comparison of New York and Sydney

New York City 5,000 sq. km 9.2 million Forestry

Key Success Factors

 Strong engagement with local government.

Relationship to the Influence Matrix

Federal agency level: United States

Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)

Clean Water Act

Successes and failures of the current US federal legislative framework