Flood Relief Operations

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:10): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation questions about the Burns review and flood mitigation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In January this year, the government received a report, led by former police commissioner Gary Burns, to examine the accuracy of the state's disaster preparedness and response to the extreme weather event which impacted South Australia in September last year. The report contained 62 recommendations that outline ways in which the government can improve its response to major storm events. Recommendation 21 of the report states:

That consideration and resources be given to support the implementation of recommendations in the report prepared on behalf of Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources…for flood warning classification of stream gauges and other locations.

My questions to the minister are:

1. How many recommendations out of the 62 have been implemented; more specifically, has recommendation 21 in the report been implemented?

2. Where are these stream gauges located?

3. What resources have been provided to develop relevant policy in line with the recommendation in DEWNR's South Australian Levee Bank Management Issues Paper, as outlined in recommendation 22 of the Burns review?

4. Can the minister outline whether a relevant management structure has been implemented in relation to levee management and flood mitigation?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:11): I thank the honourable member for her most important question. As honourable members will know, the review has, amongst many other considerations, been looking at flood risk. That is an area where I have some level of agency responsibility. The review praised ISA standards for flood expertise that was provided by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources to the State Emergency Service during the severe weather event to which the report pertains.

A great deal of work has been achieved collaboratively between DEWNR and SES in improving the capacity and capability for flood intelligence and warnings in recent years, despite the Hon. David Ridgway pooh-poohing our efforts in these matters and trying to be predictive in terms of, particularly, flash flooding. But it is important that we set up across the state data services that allow us to provide early warning to communities.

In 2015, the government commenced a flood warning and flood intelligence project, which is being jointly implemented by DEWNR and the State Emergency Service. This program embeds hydrologists and the SES state control centre to interpret meteorology, rainfall and river flow data, flood studies and intelligence, and provide advice on potential and actual flood impacts. I am advised that this allows the SES to make informed operational decisions with regard to flood responses.

The 26 September floods were the first major flood event where a hydrology and mapping service was deployed from DEWNR to the SES. This was a significant step in providing real-time intelligence to the SES, and a number of lessons were learned, I am advised, on how this service could be improved. The feedback from the SES was uniformly positive. The review makes a number of recommendations, as the honourable member has highlighted in her question, that look to improve coordination across agencies and the authorities for flood preparedness, prevention and response and recovery activities across the state.

Touching on some of the relevant recommendations from DEWNR's perspective, recommendations 18 and 19, which were managing the structural safety of dams and reservoirs and having clear protocols in place when a dam is threatening to breach during a flood. These protocols are scheduled to be completed, I am advised, by the end of this year.

Recommendation 20 ensures that data is shared between emergency services, flood forecasters and reservoir owners, and spill management operations of reservoirs are integrated into emergency warnings and response.

Recommendation 21 is an examination of multiple networks of stream flow monitoring of various agencies, ensuring that during flood events the best available data is collected to advise emergency services to inform the community and respond.

While it is not currently possible to undertake significant investment in this area to the extent that we would like, DEWNR will continue to work with stakeholders to assess and prioritise flood risk and review existing monitoring networks to inform future resource allocation for improving flood warning infrastructure.

In relation to recommendation 22, which related to developing policies to ensure that levee banks, both public and private, are managed to minimise flood risk for all the people they protect, I am advised that a flood working group has been formed to oversee the flood recommendations of this review, including those relating to private dams, levees and watercourse management. It is chaired by DEWNR, as the flood hazard leader, and replaces the flood reform taskforce which was established at the direction of the State Emergency Management Committee in 2012.

SA Water has advised me that it supports the findings in the Burns report. It is already undertaking steps towards improving communication and collaboration with key stakeholders in times of emergency. SA Water has also advised me that it has established a small working group to determine how it responds to the recommendations made in the report. They will feed this response into other work that is underway, including, of course, that led by DEWNR.

SA Water has been very active, being a member of various flood reform groups with DEWNR and other stakeholders over time. In relation to recommendation 21, I understand that SA Water regularly shares information with other states and Australian government agencies to assist in the management of critical water assets and resources across the state. This includes the sharing of raw sensor data from SA Water assets, with the Bureau of Meteorology, I am advised, and communications from the bureau as required. I am further advised that following the severe weather events of September 2016, SA Water is actively working with the bureau to identify additional ways that information can be shared so as to improve the communication flow between these two organisations.