By Corey Everitt
There are ongoing concerns about Melbourne Water’s controversial plan to lower the water level and reduce the dam wall height of the Beaconsfield Reservoir.
Melbourne Water has been working to finalise a plan for the reservoir, which is more than a century old, for some years.
The Save the Beaconsfield Reservoir Action Group (SBRAG) attended an update on Tuesday 28 March by Melbourne Water regarding the plans.
Harry Jensen, from SBRAG, was originally invited to speak with MW, but it was through Harry’s insistence that the rest of SBRAG was allowed to join and present their own reports.
“We as a group think the safety of the community regarding the reservoir is essential,” Harry said.
“But this is not really an upgrade, but a downgrade.”
Melbourne Water plans to lower the water level from 98.5m to 94m.
The driver of the Beaconsfield Reservoir Dam Safety project, according to Melbourne Water, is to reduce the risk of Beaconsfield Reservoir failing, protecting properties and community located downstream of the dam.
Officer is claimed to be the main suburb at risk.
Carol and Rob Porter live in Officer and said Melbourne Water didn’t consult Officer initially, despite it being the most at risk.
Melbourne Water’s conclusion is said to be in accordance with current dam safety guidelines, as set by Australian National Committee of Large Dams.
A booklet of frequently asked questions was published by Melbourne Water regarding the project.
In the booklet, it’s claimed the likelihood of the dam wall failure is 1 in 10,000.
SBRAG supports an alternative plan of a full upgrade, which retains the current water level and dam wall while extending necessary features required for safety.
To SBRAG, ‘partial decommission’ jeopardises the main features that are useful of the reservoir for the wider community.
Originally, Melbourne Water considered four plans for the reservoir: partial upgrade, full upgrade, full decommissioning or no action.
‘Partial upgrade’ is the plan SBRAG refers to as ‘partial decommission’.
SBRAG argues multiple reasons for a ‘full upgrade’.
First, is the capabilities it has for fighting bushfires as a water pick-up.
It is not currently used as such, but SBRAG believes reducing the water level will lead to eliminating it as vital resource.
“To me who went through Ash Wednesday, the fires came from Upper Beaconsfield and straight down through here,” Carol said.
“When you think of all the houses being built here and not wanting to keep that pristine water you would have to be nuts.”
Harry added: “It’s very shortsighted to not see the value the water provides for bush firefighting.
“When you live on the land here, you are only too aware of summer as the prime bushfire season.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) said the reservoir can still used for firefighting alongside other reservoirs in the South East, despite being reduced.
“Beaconsfield Reservoir will remain large enough to accommodate firefighting aircraft and nearby water sources such as Lysterfield Lake, Aura Vale Lake and Cardinia Reservoir are also available for firefighting activities,” the spokesperson said.
Second, is the ecological impact it would have on the immediate area.
“If that water goes, it will change the whole ecology of the whole area,” Carol said.
“The plants and the animals, it will just be a few bits of weeds and a few little bits of water.”
SBRAG is worried draining the reservoir may affect the existing bush and make the drained areas become overrun with weeds.
DEECA claims reducing the water levels would extend habitats for some local wildlife, such as the swamp skink and varieties of frogs.
DEECA also said assessments to ensure the works on the reservoir do not cause adverse effects on the local environment have been conducted by government agencies.
The draining of the reservoir is planned to be completed over the course of three years with the idea of preventing a shock to the local ecosystem.
Lastly, is leisure for the community, the reservoir has been decommissioned from public use since 1988, SBRAG believes revamping the area will bring it back to the space it once was.
“Everyone asks why is this area locked up, a significant recreational and leisure area, why are they locking it up for their own preferred values,” Harry said.
“Hundred of thousands of people now living in this growth corridor, where do they go for enjoyment?”
Before it was decommissioned, it was a significant area for locals and travellers.
“People used to come from Melbourne on the train to the reservoir,” Carol said.
Rob continued: “It was a day out, it was a Sunday night thing we walked down with the people that had come from Melbourne and waved them off.”
They don’t see why it can’t be an attraction like others.
“I had few people ask me, ‘where is this reservoir?’ and I said ‘just a couple of kilometres that way’,” Rob said.
“And they said ‘we travelled from Officer to Lysterfield Lake’, on Sunday you can’t get a car park, people just flock in there and the same at Devilbend.
“The same would happen here because look what is happening, there are 500 houses going up in Officer over the next few years.”
Melbourne Water has indicated they will provide some boardwalks and shelters if their proposal goes ahead.
“A lot of the people said, ‘great, we’ll be able to get in, we’ll be able to have picnics there, who cares about the water’, but that’s wrong, the water is the feature,” Harry explained.
In Melbourne Water’s booklet they claimed the ‘full upgrade’ was rejected due to four reasons: no safety improvement, high cost, residents affected by truck movements and materials, and removal of vegetation due to construction.
The consultation between residents and Melbourne Water has been going on for several years, with many groups being involved.
Cardinia Shire Council in 2021 passed a motion of 12 points to be put to Melbourne Water.
This was tabled in place of a motion by the council’s general manager of infrastructure and environment Peter Benazic which reported on and loosely supported the project of Melbourne Water.
The 12 points requested Melbourne Water cease any consideration of works until they produce a document outlining the future of the reservoir, while also calling on them to produce documentation of its safety risks.
The council described the Beaconsfield Reservoir as “a place of highly significant environmental, community and cultural importance for our region”.
“A wonderful natural asset that has great potential for community and environmental benefit into the future.”
Beacon Hills Ward Councillor Brett Owen said the council “recognises that this is a complicated matter with differing perspectives”.
“Although the Beaconsfield Reservoir is under the State Government’s jurisdiction, Cardinia Shire Council has been proactive in encouraging Melbourne Water to engage in community consultation regarding the dam wall’s proposed lowering.”
The council’s 2021 motion was in response to a petition by SBRAG to oppose the changes by Melbourne Water.
The petition garnered wide support, accumulating 1700 signatures.
Despite this, Harry believes Melbourne Water is “ignoring our support from the community”.
A spokesperson for Melbourne Water said they have considered the values of the local area.
“We understand the value the reservoir holds to the community, and this has been carefully considered throughout the decision-making and engagement process,” they said.
“Beaconsfield Dam was built over 100 years ago and does not meet current industry standards for a dam of its size. The Safety Upgrade Project is necessary to protect properties and communities located downstream.
“We will continue to collaborate with the local community to capture the history of the dam and the Beaconsfield Nature Conservation Reserve as part of this project.”
The Beaconsfield Reservoir was created in 1918 as supply for the HMVS Cerberus stationed in Victoria during the war.
From then it served as a vital reservoir that supplied the area all the way down to the Mornington Peninsula.
SBRAG looks to raise funds for a heritage report to be issued to the reservoir.
The Beaconsfield Reservoir was heritage listed, but taken off in 2011.
The Gazette understands its removal was not against its potential heritage significance, but rather that it did not meet the necessary criteria for its specific listing as an archaeological site.
