Friends of the Earth Melbourne (May 2008) Draft

National Toxics Network

Survey of Pesticides in Surface Waters of Domestic Water Supplies – Victorian Water Authorities 1998* - 2007

1. Summary

There is little monitoring of agrochemicals in surface waters in Victoria. Water authorities have the best set of information in Victoria about pesticides in drinking water, but in many cases even this is most likely woefully inadequate. Between 2006 and 2007, Friends of the Earth, through Freedom of Information requests, gained access to some of the records of the State's Water Authorities mainly covering the years 1998-2007, and was surprised at the lack of information supplied by authorities.

Pesticides detected in Victorian domestic water supplies included; 2,4-D, Glyphosate, Hexazinone, Simazine, Chlorpyrifos, Atrazine and the organochlorines Hexachlorobenzene, Pentachlorophenol, Diedrin/Aldrin, Heptachlor, Methoxychlor, Lindane and Endosulphan. The most serious incidents appear to be mostly related to use of 2,4-D, which is classified by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as a Class 2B carcinogen - possibly carcinogenic to humans. 2,4-D is also known as an endocrine disruptor. Many of the organochlorines had been banned for some time yet residues remain in sediment, which can be mobilised during rainfall. (Most of the pesticides detected are known endocrine disruptors).

Only one pesticide pollution incident was reported above the Australian Drinking Water Health Limit, with sixteen coming in above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline Limits. The most at risk water supplies, according to the limited FoI information, appear to be the two open aquaduct systems which flow into the Wurdee Boluc Reservoir and into the Stony Creek Reservoirs managed by Barwon Water. These aquaducts are at risk from cropping and grazing pesticides as the aquaducts flow through open farmland, in some places lower than surrounding farmland. The Broken Creek system managed by Goulburn Murray Water, which supplies the communities of Nathatalia and Numurkah also appears to be at some risk as do some communities relying on channel water in northern Victoria. The longest duration pollution incident reported in the past decade occurred in the Moorabool System (Barwon Water) with the herbicide Hexazinone, associated with weed control in pine plantations, leaching at low volumes for almost 3 years. The pesticide was detected 50km downstream.

Many more questions remain about the quality of drinking water in terms of pesticide pollution. In mid 2007 four water authorities (28.6%) were not testing for pesticides at all (that number is now two). Seven water authorities (50%) were testing on average only two currently used pesticides, leaving only three (21.4%) water authorities testing for between 40-72 pesticides. This means that in late 2007, eleven (78.6%)of the fourteen water authorities were testing for less than 2 currently used pesticides. This is most unsatisfactory.

To put this into context, Friends of the Earth estimates that between 200-300 pesticides are used in Melbourne's water supply above Sugarloaf Reservoir which is dominated by vineyards, orchards, berry farms etc. Melbourne Water only test for two currently used pesticides, atrazine and 2,4-D, which represent approximately <1% of pesticides used in the Yarra catchment. The Maffra/Stratford water supply in Gippsland is dominated by irrigated pasture, yet no testing on pesticides is carried out by Gippsland Water. Much of Ballarat's water supply is dominated by potato farms and plantations. The water authority in the Ballarat region Central Highands Water uses Hexazinone in their plantations many of which surround reservoirs, yet does not test for it or many other pesticides widely used by the potato industry. These examples are not uncommon which means that many water supplies may be at risk but no data is available to determine if pesticides are leaching into these water supplies.

The three most commonly used pesticides used in Australia, Glyphosate, Atrazine and Simazine remain under-sampled across Victorian water supplies. 4/14 authorities test for Glyphosate, 5/14 test for Atrazine and 1?/14 test for Simazine, even though Simazine is registered for use across a plethora and land uses. Friends of the Earth estimates that over 200 'commonly used' pesticides in Victoria remain untested by any water authority, whilst approximately only 70 are tested by at least one water authority. This means that the 140 positive pesticide results recorded in this survey are likely to represent a tiny fraction of the total range of pesticides that could be in the water, particularly in times of heavy rainfall after spraying events. It should also be stated that most of the pesticide testing reviewed in this project has been conducted during a ten year 'dry spell' which may well have influenced overall results to a certain extent.

2. Recommendations

1) Water authorities must undertake detailed catchment surveys to determine which pesticides are being used in what volumes in different parts of their catchments to aid in the design of more effective monitoring programs. Catchment protection should be a priority including multiple barriers to prevent pest and toxic chemicals getting into waterways. Rapid implementation of water protection policies also needs to occur.

2) Water authorities must be transparent and accountable in relation to pesticide monitoring in water supplies. The number of pesticides tested and the frequency of testing needs to be reviewed to ensure the programs are relevant and measuring currently used pesticides. Monitoring data must be available to the public.

3) A list of Restricted Use "Water Supply" pesticides must be determined by the Department of Primary Industries, after public consultation, and circulated to all pesticide users operating within domestic water supply catchments. This could be regarded as an extension of the current 'restricted use' provisions already in operation. If restricted pesticides continue to be detected they should be banned from use in water supply catchments.

4) The pesticide control of use legislation must be amended to require commercial users of pesticides operating in domestic water supplies, to maintain records of pesticide use for an indefinite period. Copies of pesticide records should be made available to water authorities and the DPI.

5) Postive pesticide detections must be followed up with an investigation by water authorities and/or the DPI to determine the source of pesticide contamination. Remedial action must be taken to stop the source of pesticide contamination entering waterways. Postive pesticide results, at any level, mustbe made public by water authorities.

6) Water authorities managing high risk catchments should invest in water treatment facilities which incorporate the use of treatments to remove pesticide residues, such as carbon filters and/or reverse osmosis filtration.

Table of Contents

February 2008: Woori Yallock Creek. Strawberry pesticide spraying in Melbourne's water supply. Pesticides used on strawberries and many other agricultural practices are not tested for by Melbourne Water.

During the 1970's and 1980's Friends of the Earth in Melbourne was very active on pesticide issues. Emphasis on pesticide issues within the Friends of the Earth network in the 1990's 'centred' on Tasmania, particularly in regards to the misuse of Atrazine in forest plantations. For a number of years however members of Friends of the Earth Melbourne’s Forest Collective, (The Forest Network 1993-2004) became increasingly concerned about the use of agrochemicals in the plantation forestry industry. Friends of the Earth was concerned that many plantations (particularly pine) were grown in high rainfall areas of Victoria and in areas that may be used for domestic water supplies.

A list of pollution incidents concerning plantations was compiled by FoE highlighting the fact that pollution events had occurred, but these had largely been confined to Tasmania and South Australia. Very little information was available regarding incidents in Victoria and the privatisation of the States plantation base in 1998 (sold to Hancock Victorian Plantations), meant that plantation forestry was exempt from Freedom of Information requests and therefore ‘beyond the public gaze’. It was also evident that plantation forestry was booming throughout the state. What was the impact of the plantation expansion on the state's water supplies?

In early 2002 and 2003 Friends of the Earth sent out Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to the Gippsland EPA and Gippsland Water, requesting information about positive pesticide detections in Gippsland catchments and catchments that supplied residents in the region with drinking water. FoE had long been involved in monitoring logging operations in the privatised Strzelecki Ranges. FoE had also heard rumours of pesticide pollution in the Strzeleckis, but was unsure where these events had been documented.

Limited information came from the FoI requests except for the acknowledgement that the pine herbicide Hexazinone had leached from a Hancock plantation (at Lecki) in 1998 above Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) guideline levels and that Simazine had leaked in a pollution incident, outside of a domestic water supply. It was a shock to learn that testing for pesticides was not taking place by Gippsland Water, they were actually relying on information to be sent to them. Was this also the case with all Victorian water authorities?

North East Water had been contacted by FoE in early 2003 concerning the water supplies for Beechworth and Yackandandah. FoE was sent a list of pesticides and other pollutants stating what North East Water was sampling for. The authority was not testing for plantation herbicides even though Yackandandah has a water supply dominated by pine plantations that were being clearfelled and sprayed with herbicides.

Friends of the Earth began mapping the state’s plantation base in 2001, not only as a means of locating plantations, but also as a means of determining which plantations were located in which domestic water supplies. This information was not added to GIS programmes until early 2007 after grants from the Reichstein and Fouress Foundations. For maps see here.

By and large it was found that new bluegum plantations were being grown outside of domestic water supplies. There are notable exceptions to this trend; Midways in the Otways establishing bluegums and replanting pines with bluegums (water supply for SW Victoria), Harris Daishowa '02 in the Rocky River (Orbost water supply), Great Southern Plantations catchments in Gippsland (Meeniyan 06, Boolara 06, Foster Jan 08), Enviroinvest (Stawell Dec 07) and Woolybutt/Rimbunan Hijau Candowie Reservoir (Phillip Island Apr 08). These incursions appeared initially to be minor in comparison to existing pine plantations located in water supplies, particularly those owned by Hancock Victorian Plantations throughout Victoria and Midway Plantations Pty Ltd in the Otways.

In May 2006 Friends of the Earth and the Otways Conservation Council organized a forum at Gellibrand in the Otway Ranges. From FoE’s existing plantation mapping of the region, it became clear that the water supply with the most plantations located in it in Victoria, was probably the Gellibrand River For Otways maps see here.

The Gellibrand River is the main source of water in south west Victoria, providing drinking water to over 50,000 people. The Otway's largest plantation managers, Midway Plantations Pty Ltd, were establishing new hardwood plantations in the region and replanting pine plantations with bluegum. Bluegum expansion raised the scenario of increased spray regimes and aerial spraying of insecticides. The township of Gellibrand also had plantations within one kilometre of its offtake on Lardners Creek. A representative from South West Water also attended the meeting and provided a list of pesticides that South West Water test for. People attending the meeting were more than alarmed to learn that none of the pesticides used in plantations in the Otways were currently being tested for by the water authority.

In the second half of 2006 Friends of the Earth became aware of a pollution incident at a Hancock pine plantation at Korweinguboora, located south of Daylesford. Since 2002, the plantation had been an issue of concern for Friends of the Earth as 1400ha of the plantation surrounds Korweinguboora Reservoir, which is part of Geelong’s water supply. The Geelong water supply is managed by Barwon Water. Incidentally in a meeting held with Barwon Water, earlier in 2006, Barwon Water had stated that pesticides were regarded as a low risk.

Friends of the Earth conducted a Freedom of Information request with Barwon Water asking for details of positive pesticide readings. The response showed that unlike Gippsland Water, Barwon Water had a more rigorous pesticide monitoring system, however the FoI also revealed that not only had the Barwon system been threatened by the herbicide hexazinone which had first been detected in December 2004, but more serious incidents had occurred a few years earlier with the herbicide 2,4-D (2,4-D is registered for use in plantations but is mainly associated with grazing and cropping).

In 2006/7, the Victorian State Government reviewed the existing Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act, the legislation responsible for pesticide use in Victoria. Two submissions were sent into this review by two water authorities. FoE managed to get a copy of the Gippsland Water submission which contained some serious statements including; “Records are kept for the application of restricted chemical products, but not for the other commonly used products that have environmental or health implications. Gippsland Water has had difficulty in obtaining information on the chemicals used within a catchment area upstream of a water treatment plant and town water supply… Currently there is no common record of chemical products that are likely to be applied in agricultural areas within potable water catchments…”

After more research into the location of domestic water supplies in Victoria, it became evident that plantation forestry was not the major user of pesticides in all Victorian water supply catchments. Agricultural practices in many catchments were the dominant users of pesticides. The best opportunity then to determine whether pesticides were being detected in these water supplies lay with the water authorites. What this meant is that Forest Network, which had evolved into FoE’s Land and Water Collective, would have to broaden its focus to include agricultural practices and its impacts on water quality.

It soon became clear that to get a clearer picture of what was going on where, FoE would have to start writing FoI requests to all of the States water authorities. At this time, 2006, there were also widespread concerns in regards to an EPA investigation into fish kills associated with the herbicide acrolein by Goulburn Murray Water (GMW). Not only was the authority using acrolein to kill aquatic weeds in irrigation channels and drains throughout northern Victoria, but GMW were also using the herbicides 2,4-D, amitrole and glyphosate. see GMW here . The region was also heavily impacted by thousands of hectares of horticultural and irrigated pasture.

Certain towns in northern Victoria are reliant on channels to provide them with drinking water and a report published by GMW in June 2006 (20) revealed that some of these channels had already been recording low levels of Atrazine, Endosulfan and Chlorpyrifos in town supplies. With the use of herbicides in channels for weed control, what was the risk to consumers of the drinking water? Information also came to hand (January 2008) that GMW also 'regularly' use Weedmaster (Glyphosate) in the Waranga Western Channel (WWC) as a means of controlling weeds. WWC is used as a domestic water supply and will soon be supplying Bendigo and Ballarat via a pipeline being built from Colbinabbin. Some the channels already recording low levels of pesticides can feed into, at certain times of the year, into the WWC. Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water have also stated that they use Glyphosate to control weeds in their channel infrastructure. In the past farmers have been documented using triazines (atrazine, simazine) and amitrole to control weeds along channels and drains (21). Grampian Wimmera Mallee Water do not test for these pesticides.

Tatura Water Supply Channel No.3/5. Low levels of Atrazine and Endosulphan have been detected in this channel.

In mid 2007 Friends of the Earth also began taking a closer look at the Yarra River catchment, upstream of the offtake to Sugarloaf Reservoir. Over 9000 hectares of intensive horticulture occurs in this catchment, within 20km of Sugarloaf Reservoir. This makes one source of Melbourne's drinking water (Sugarloaf Reservoir), supplying 1.2 million residents possibly the highest risk catchment in the state in terms of pesticide pollution of drinking water. See here for more details. Information also sourced from the EPA showed almost no information from that authority regarding pesticides used in the Upper Yarra catchment.

In hindsight, all of the FoI requests should have been sent at the same time, this would have provided a more manageable means of standardising the information. However as the process was also a means of discovery, with snippets of information coming to light over the passage of time, a strategic co-ordinated approach to the requests did not occur. The requests were in fact staggered mainly between July 06 and January 08 and in some cases requests had to be followed with other requests after initial information was not properly requested or gained. Ideally the FoI requests should have gone back to 1977 (the start of the FoI act) but this was deemed as unrealistic by many of the water authorities who had in some cases amalgamated and who claimed that they did not have the resources, time or inclination to get access to that information.

The information is weakened further by many water authorities not testing for a suite of the hundreds of pesticides that are registered for use in Victoria. Furthermore, testing regimes may only occur on an annual, half yearly or quarterly basis, potentially meaning that a pesticide may be leaching into a water supply, but is not being picked up by the authorities. From research conducted by FoE as part of this project, it would appear that between 200-300 agricultural pesticides are used within Victorian domestic water supplies. Approximately 70% of these pesticides are not tested for by any Victorian water authority.

4. Other Surveys

"The Australian Water Resources Council initiated the Victorian Water Quality Assesment Program (WQAP) in 1975 as part of its National Water Quality Assessment Program. Subsequent to this, the Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network (VWQMN) was established to collect water quality data for all major streams and their tributaries in Victoria. From 1975 to 1991, the VWQMN was re-defined through a number of reviews)" (12) These programs were however not set up to monitor pesticides.

In the Yarra catchment Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) started testing for pesticides in 1977, as the Sugarloaf Reservoir was on the drawing board. Sugarloaf, later built in the early 1980's would pump water from the Yarra River which also was intensively farmed.. "In 1977 the Water Water Supply Planning Branch purchased five automatic samplers of which four were Manning S-4040 automatic samplers and one Manning S-4040T automatic sampler. The S4040T sampler was used at Yering to monitor the effects of farming and intensive cropping and the use of pesticides, soil additives etc" (32). No details of pesticide results were published and none were published in Summary Statistics from the Intensive Water Quality Monitoring Program (1978 to 1983)..

In 1978 a Cluster of birth abnormalities occurred at Yarram in Victoria (1975-76). A Report entitled "Consultative Council on Congenital Abnormalities in the Yarram District. Victorian Government. October 1978" was produced which investigated the link to the birth abnormalities and the use of 2,4,5-T in weed control (blackberry) and pine plantation establishment. It was criticised shortly after its completion for being 'statistically questionable' .

In 1982, the EPA published a report looking at pesticide levels in sediment and water in the Yarra River catchment, Werribee and Little River catchments (1). Positive detections for organochlorines were detected at all sites, including seven sites in the Yarra Catchment, including one site on the Yarra River, just downstream of the location of the future Sugarloaf Reservoir. The report proved that low levels of organochlorines were being washed down the Yarra catchment, which in future years would be added to the Melbourne water supply system. The report mainly focused on organochlorines.

In 1982 a further study into Macroinvertebrates of the Yarra River; stated in regards to Wandin Yallock Creek that "pesticides appear to be the most likely toxic influence at this site. TDE, DDE, DDT and Dieldrin have been detected in the sediments at a site 2km downstream of a major market gardening and horticultural area, and DDT and Dieldrin have been found in the sediments of a site in the middle of the market gardening area...TDE, DDE, DDT and Dieldrin have been detected in sediment samples 8km downstream of areas of intensive market gardening and potato growing..." (30)

Another study (31) published in 1983 looked at pesticide transport in three sub catchments of the Upper Yarra Catchment. The pesticides Diedrin, DDT, DDE, Linuron and 2,4,5-T were detected. Pesticides at one location were most frequently detected in flows during vegetable washing operations. Pesticide concentrations were also generally higher in storm flow samples. Pesticide loads transported from catchments were generally between 1.3 and 9.3 mg/ha and between 134 and 228mg/ha in relation to vegetable washing plants. The authors wrote; "The concentrations of Dieldrin and DDT do not appear to present problems for drinking water supply in the Yarra River itself although, on occassions the concentrations detected in flows from cultivated land during storms and operation of vegetable washing plants exceeded health criteria".(31).

It could be argued that if vineyards are included, the current amount of intensively sprayed agriculture in the Upper Yarra Catchment is in 2008, 9000ha+, a 1000% increase on the 870ha intensive cropping figure quoted in the above study, potentially meaning higher pesticide volumes at a catchment level, also potentially meaning higher levels of pesticide loads transported from catchments, depending on the pesticide and site conditions.

In 1985 the Rural Water Commission of Victoria wrote; "A commitment to pesticide and herbicide analyses by the State Water Laboratory (SWL) cannot be justified at present" (2). They added; "Experience obtained in the past suggests that pesticide and herbicide contamination of the water column is unlikely following pollution incidents. Rather, these organic compounds are readily absorbed onto sediments or particulate matter and tend to be concentrated through the food chain. Analyses of sediments and biota are generally preferable in that they represent a time-weighted average of concentrations in the water, whereas grab samples of water only represent instantaneous values."(2)

This appeared to be the state of play until the 1990's.

"The true extent of pesticide exposure through polluted water supplies is not known in Australia, and governments are extremely slow to respond. In 1993, a joint NHMRC/Australian Water Resources Commission working party was still revising pesticide water residue levels, a process begun prior to the 1989 Senate enquiry. Their tardiness to recommend more stringent guidelines may well be due to the implications such changes will have for local water supply authorities. Most are already aware that many rural water supplies are contaminated with pesticides, and the introduction of new guidelines may render many supplies unfit for human consumption. Perhaps this is why the Victorian Government went cool on the issue after an initial report boldly acknowledged that a proportion of Victoria's country towns' water supplies did not neet minimum standards for safe drinking water as set by the World Health Organisation. 'With few exceptions the water quality of urban supplies outside Melbourne with respect to pesticides, herbicides and heavy metals is essentially unknown, as no routine monitoring for these compounds is currently undertaken" (17)

"By 1991, the emphasis had changed and the same government concluded that 'no significant concentrations [of pesticides] have been found'. However, as the report itself indicated, only OC pesticides were tested for ... Moreover because it used National Health Medical Research Council Guideline Values, the report was also able to claim 'no significant concentrations', even though their own results suggested the need for greater scrutiny of raw data, particularly the peaks in contamination that would 'iron out' when averages were calculated. Dieldrin values for tap water averages, for example, were only one third under the WHO Guideline Values, and the possibility of far greater concentrations occurring in particular community water supplies cannot be excluded" (17)

During the 1980's, 1990's research was also conducted into pesticide pollution of the Ovens and King Rivers. Concerns focused on the impacts of the tobacco industry. Organochlorines were detected upstream of the water supply for Wangaratta. (3) (4)

"I kept on making enquiries and found that those drinking water from Boggy Creek and the King River in most cases suffered disease and ill-health. Wangaratta's water supply is drawn from the King and Ovens Rivers, both of which have a catchment along kilometres of farms growing tobacco, hops, grapes and fruit. In many cases the crops are grown to the actual river itself and often steeply sloping to the water. There are also dairy and cattle farms to the north-east which have been quarantined because of high chemical residues. For many years, tests carried out by bodies such as the EPA, State Forests and Lands and the Rural Water Commission have shown fluctuating levels of cyclodienes in the Ovens and King Rivers but the all clear signal has been given time and time again (Shirley Barber, The Mohyu Valley, Victoria. May 1991. (17)

By 1991 the position of the SWL had changed to; "The SWL has only recently acquired the necessary analytical equipment to test for pesticides in town water supplies. This equipment has been used to 'screen' routine samples and build up a data base of information over time. Where is it suspected that pesticides may be present (such as after aerial spraying on forests or crops) the Environment Protection Agency have carried out more extensive tests to investigate the situation. Recent examples of such investigations are at Aireys Inlet and the Ovens River near Myrtleford." (5) "Analyses for the following organochlorine pesticides are being carried out by the SWL to a detection limit of one tenth of the guideline value set by the World Health Organisation in 1984: Chlordane (total isomers), DDT (total isomers), Heptachlor and Hepatachlor Epoxide, Hexachlorobenzene, Methoxychlor, Gamma - HCH (Lindane). Samples have been collected from most raw water supplies to towns throughout the state. At this stage, no significant concentrations have been found." (5).

“The only incident in which concentrations were found exceeding WHO guidelines (detection limits are generally less than 1/10th of the guideline values) was in the Colac Supply in January 1994. Samples from Olangolah Dam and the No 4 Service Basin were found to contain DDT at concentrations twice the WHO guideline of 2ug/L. Samples taken four days later showed negligible concentrations and none after treatment.” (10).

The following statement was published in the Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network Annual Report 1993; p111 "The 1990 review of the Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network (Rural Water Corporation 1991) proposed additional and seperate monitoring for rivers and streams, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands, as well as an increase in the type and number of parameters to get utilised ... There are a number of recommendations from the 1990 Review that are still to be implemented in the VWQMN. Listed below are the remaining Review recommendations as well as three recently proposed future directions for the VWQMN, implentation of which depends on whether resources are available... Organochlorine compounds are widely used in pesticides, herbicides & algacides. These substances are potentially toxic to non-target species, not readily broken down in the environment, bioaccumulate and tend to accumulate in sediments. Monitoring of compounds such as Aldrin, Dieldrin, DDE, DDD, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, Hexachlorobenzene, Lindane, Methoxychlor and Endosulphan provide base information and indicate potential sources of environmental and health problems". (13)

The only pesticide monitoring published by the VWQMN is a small note in Table 6 entitled 'Parametres monitored as part of the Murray Darling Basin Committee Physico-Chem Baseline Monitoring Programme. Additional Parametres Monitored Herbicides/Pesticides. Denotes monthly monitoring in the Murray River at Morgan (SA) only'. (16) This is also backed up by Table 1: Summary of Network Water Quality Sampling in Victoria (18) which shows that out of the following programs; VWQMN, EPA, MDBC, Melbourne Water, Salinity Program and Biological, only the MDBC is listed as monitoring for herbicides/pesticides. And this was based on information collated in Morgan South Australia!

In 1994, the SWL (a business unit of the Rural Water Corporation) and the Melbourne Water Laboratories (a business unit of Melbourne Water Corporation) were merged to form a private company trading under the name of water Ecoscience.After 1996 Water Ecoscience became responsible for data collected by the Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network. Again pesticides were not included in the monitoring.

"Following the 1996 Review, a discussion paper was produced (Testing the Waters. The 1996 Review of Victorian Water Quality Monitoring. Technical Discussion Paper" (14). Written in the Review; "The State and Commonwealth governments are mainly responsible for statewide water quality monitoring. Statewide requirements are currently funded by two Government agencies - Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority. In addition to this, Melbourne Water and Rural Water Authorities are responsible for the management of public and private diversions...Overall responsibility for water quality influences is assigned through legislation and policies such as State Environment Protection Policies (SEPP's) administered by the EPA and NRE ... Monitoring was reviewed in 1991, with the current program based on that review, although the recommendations have only been partially implemented, mainly due to funding constraints...Recommendations of the previous review have not yet been implemented ... Monitoring of hydrocarbons and biocides in sediments and metals in water and sediments". The final copy of the 1996 Review (dated September 1997) appears to avoid any discussion about pesticide monitoring. (15)

During the early to mid 1990's the Department of Agriculture also started looking more closely at the impacts of pesticides on waterways (7). The Mitchell River was the main focus area, where traces of atrazine, endosulphan and chlorpyrifos were detected in 1993. Testing expanding into the next year into 5 regions of Mornington Peninsula and Gippsland, including possibly the water supply for Thorpdale. No detections were found at Thorpdale but traces of pesticides (Dieldrin and DDT) were found in very close proximity to the main offtake on the Mitchell River, upstream of the intensive horticultural practices associated near Lindenow. Other pesticides detected in a variety of locations included Atrazine, Metribuzin, Linuron, Diuron, Simazine, Endosulphan, Dieldrin, DDT and Methamidophos. (8)

In the mid 1990's researchers were finding pesticide pollution in groundwater, particularly in northern Victoria near Horticultural areas. (21). Research found "low level contaminations by organochlorinated pesticides (total benzene, hexachloride, heptachlor & its epoxide, total chlordane, total endosulphan, dicloran, endrin, dieldrin, lindane, DDT, DDD, DDE & dicofol), organophosphorous pesticides (chlorpyrifos, fenitrothion, dichlorvos, parathion, ethion, diazinon, mevinphos, tetrachlor, fenvinphos and fenchlorvos), s-triazines (atrazine, simazine, hexazinone and prometryne) and amitrole. Groundwater contamination was identified to be at higher levels in the horticultural areas of Ardmona. Surface water reported only minor contamination" (21)

Melbourne Water did produce a UWRAA report in 1996 looking at a range of contaminants found in sediment in the Yarra Catchment. The report mainly looked at substances such as PAH's (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), however some pesticides were also included. Tests for BHC, Lindane, Heptachlor, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Chlordane, Endosulphan, DDT, Dieldrin, Methoxychlor were carried out. Positive results for some of the pesticides were found mainly well downstream of Melbourne's water supply, however Dichloran, BHC, Lindane, Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide were found in sediments quite a distance upstream from the Sugarloaf Reservoir offtake. Sediment levels for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide were very high at a sampling location downstream from Reefton, yet it appears that these levels have not been recorded by Melbourne Water testing at Sugarloaf Reservoir.(22)

Melbourne Water also initiated Streamwatch in the mid 1990's to better research toxicants in the Yarra River. However pesticide testing was generally unlikely to be included in this program. "Baseline data plays an important role in assessing the performance of these initiatives and such data sets are being developed for Melbourne by the Melbourne Water Corporation (eg Lewin 1997, Melbourne Water Corporation 1997). The data collected for this study forms part of the Melbourne Water's ongoing stream monitoring program, "Streamwatch" which is an extensive program including monitoring of water quality, biological health, toxicants and litter. Aside from the Streamwatch program, no extensive studies of stream toxicants have previously been undertaken in Melbourne. However, ther have been a number of site specific studies (eg Bagg et al., 1981, Pouliot 1993, Reed 1992) and an earlier study, on heavy metals only, conducted by the Victorian Environment Protection Agency". (33)

This LWRRDC Report (33) looked at sediments at 44 locations across the Port Phillip Bay and Western Port Bay catchments. Five of these sites were located above the offtake to Sugarloaf Reservoir, however individual results tabled in the report were not given in site specific detail, meaning that it is impossible to work out where the positive samples were taken and in what quantities, many of which were located in heavily urbanised areas well downstream of domestic water supply offtakes.. Pesticides found in sediments in the LWRRDC report included; HCB, Dicloran, Total BHC, Lindane, Heptachlor, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Total Chlordane, Heptachlor Epoxide, Total Endosulphan, op-DDE, pp-DDE, op-DDT, pp-DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, op-DDD, pp-DDD, Methoxychlor. Mean readings included; Dicofol 0.12mg/kg, op-DDT, pp-DDT 0.11mg/kg, Total Endosulfan 0.045mg/kg, Endrin 0.035mg/kg, Diedrin 0.028mg/kg, Methoxychlor 0.025mg/kg, Total Chlordane 0.020mg/kg, Heptachlor Epoxide 0.020mg/kg, Total BHC 0.014mg/kg, Heptachlor 0.013mg/kg, Chlorpyrifos 0.012mg/kg, Dicloran 0.010mg/kg, op-DDE, pp-DDE 0.010mg/kg, HCB 0.007mg/kg, Lindane 0.005mg/kg, Aldrin 0.005mg/kg. Total OC Pesticides 0.24mg/kg. (33)

On a national level interest was also increasing about the issue of monitoring pesticides in water. "Recently the first reports of monitoring pesticides in waterways in this country have been published and the results are of concern". "... It is generally believed to be the case that surface water management is the principle mechanism for river contamination by pesticides" (34)

By the late nineties the Government was also acknowedging that "low level" pollution of groundwater had occurred in Victoria, possibly in domestic supplies(p19); “The herbicide Atrazine has emerged as a significant contaminant of groundwaters in Europe and North America. Despite its limited usage in Victoria some has been found at concentrations less the guideline values, in drainage waters from irrigation areas and also in vulnerable aquifers used for drinking water supply. (9) (p20) Apparently the Government was also stepping up its monitoring of pesticides; "Additional monitoring for other organics is currently being undertaken for the MoU between water authorities and the Minister. These organics include industrial and other contaminants, organochlorine pesticides and 2,4-D..."Since 1997 Water Authorities have been signing memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with the former Minister of Agriculture and Resesources. These include amongst other things, the requirement for non-exempt supplies to meet WHO, 1984 Guidelines by the year 2000". (9)

Furthermore Water Ecoscience, who were contracted by the State Government to test waters for pesticides claimed in 2001: "Most pesticide concentrations were below the detection limit. No incidents in which concentrations exceeded WHO Guidelines occurred during the period July 1999-June 2001.(19)" This statement therefore claims that positive samples had been detected but no elaboration was made in the report about locations of the sources. The levels of detection used by the State Government were also quite high as is explained in the table below;

A massive leeway appears granted for 2,4-D. Of all the pesticides tested for with the baseline data, only 2,4-D limits were set well above the levels set for future health limits. This means that large amounts of 2,4-D may well have been entering waterways but monitoring levels were set too high to be detected. This is important as a large proportion of many domestic water supplies in Victoria are dominated by cropping and grazing where 2,4-D use is commonplace.

In terms of water authority testing, results from this report indicate that only South Gippsland Water provided access to tests going as far back as 1991. Testing regimes instigated by water authorities largely before 1995 are unknown. The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) may have been testing for pesticides, however records accessed via FoI only go back as far as February 1997.

Other water supply authorities were also sampling but these samples were often limited and haphazard. Such sampling certainly did not test for all pesticides used within domestic water supplies and water authorities were under no obligation to inform other State Government Department's if positive samples were detected.

A Freedom of Information request from Department of Human Services (State Government Victoria) (Incorporating; Health, Community Services, Mental Health, Senior Victorians and Housing)

It said;"The Department's Environmental Health Unit has advised that since 1 July 2004, the quality of drinking water in Victoria has been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. The state's water businesses are required under this act to notify the department of any incident where the drinking water they supply to the public presents a risk to public health. There are no recorded notifications of instances of pesticide pollution in drinking water supplies for the period 1 July 2004 to 3 January 2008.

For the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2004, there were no formal regulatory arrangements in place regarding reporting of incidents in drinking water supplies."

Please note that Friends of the Earth in this study compiled a list of 140 incidents of pesticides being detected in water supplies in Victoria between 1996-2007. It appears that if pesticides are detected under the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines limits for particular pesticides, the incident doesn't have to be reported to DHS. Prior to 30 June 2004 it appears that DHS didn't have to be consulted at all by water authorities if a pollution incident occurred. It also appears that with the instigation of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1994, some water authorities deemed that their catchments were of a low risk and stopped testing for pesticides at this time (re: North East Water, East Gippsland Water, Westernport Water). According to East Gippsland Water; The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004) state that “Routine monitoring for pesticides is not required unless potential exists for contamination of water supplies”.

Although pressure from Friends of the Earth has seen North East Water start testing gain in late 2007 and Westernport Water have been reported as recommencing their pesticide testing in May/June 2008.

It should also be pointed out that the European Union has a policy that pesticides should not be detected in drinking water (Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC). The EU's position is that "The value of 0.1 µg/l is a substitute for zero, not present in water or below the detection limit". Given that position any positive reading would be regarded as a breach to the EU. Given this fact, most of the Health Values for pesticides in Australia are well over the EU limit.

The European Union (EU) has issued the drinking water directive of 1998 that sets a maximum concentration of 0.0001mg/L for individual pesticides or degradation products and 0.0005mg/L for total pesticide residues in drinking water after treatment (Acero et al, 2000, http://europa.eu.int/water/water-drink/98_83en.pdf)*.

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

Table 10.11 Guideline values for pesticides

a - These are generally based on the analytical limit of determination (the level at which the pesticide can be reliably detected using practicable, readily available and validated analytical methods). If a pesticide is detected at or above this value the source should be identified and action taken to prevent further contamination

b - Based on 10% of acceptable daily intake (ADI).

c - These pesticides have either been detected on occasions in Australian drinking water or their likely use would indicate that they may be occasionally be detected.

Note: Routine monitoring for pesticides is not required unless potential exists for contamination of water supplies.(29)

See here for defintion of ADI

5. Results of Survey

In 2007 the Department of Primary Industries published the "Review of agrochemical contamination of waterways within agricultural areas of Victoria”. In regards to surface water the review said p7; “There has been very little monitoring of agrochemicals in surface waters in Victoria. Organochlorines found in a number of areas, particularly in the Ovens catchment. Atrazine, metribuzin, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos detected in Gippsland surface waters (concentrations low and below guideline values). Monitoring in the Melbourne metropolitan area has indicated agrochemical contamination from urban sources.” (23)

What can be added to this statement is; Water authorities in Victoria have in recent years detected the following pesticides in surface water in domestic water supplies; 2,4-D, Hexachlorobenzene, Pentachlorophenol, Dieldrin, Glyphosate, Aldrin, Heptachlor, Hexazinone, Methoxychlor, Simazine, Lindane, Chlorpyrifos, Endosulphan and Atrazine. Acrolein has also been detected when used and Bifenthrin, Esfenvalerate & Taufluvalinate have been detected in relatively high levels upstream of a town water supply.

The most serious concern appears to be the open aquaduct supply system to both Wurdee Boluc Reservoir and Stony Creek Reservoir managed by Barwon Water (Geelong and district drinking water). Three instances of pesticides (2,4-D & Glyphosate) entering the Wurdee Boluc system have been detected in the past 4 years. One incident possibly lasting for some time (3 months), with 2,4-D readings in May 2003 breaching the ADWG health value, however this was not widely known because it occurred before July 1 2004, when such an incident would have to have been reported under the Safe Drinking Water Act. See here for more information about Geelong's water supplies.

Wurdee Boluc Aquaduct can be impacted by farm run-off at several location where the water level is below the upslope.

High readings of 2,4-D were also recorded by Barwon Water in August 2003 at Wurdee Boluc and Stony Creek Reservoir #3. The May Wurdee Boluc 2,4-D Incident, remains the only example of pesticide levels breaching the ADWG health value anywhere in the state over the 1998-2007 period. The Stony Creek Reservoir incident also recorded relatively high levels of 2,4-D in August 2003, 66% of ADWG health value and 200 times higher than the ADWG guideline value. It is clear that agricultural practices, cropping, in close proximity to the aquaducts are the culprits for this pollution. Was an audit of cropping located nearby the aquaducts conducted by Barwon Water and why did three seperate incidents occur within a 3 month time frame with the same pesticide?

Bolwarrah Aquaduct, part of Geelong and district water supply.

2,4-D runoff and use in the Broken Creek catchment in the north of the state is also of concern, with a reading 170 times higher than the guideline value occurring in June 2005 at Numurkah.

The longest recorded residues of pesticides have been recorded again by Barwon Water with hexazinone leaching into Geelong’s water supply (at low levels) for almost 3 years. The hexazinone was found to be leaching from a plantations managed by Hancock Victorian Plantations, with some hexazinone residues detected 50km offsite. Only one water authority, Barwon Water, tests for hexazinone (North East Water began testing again in 2008). If this incident were to happen (or has happened) elsewhere in Victoria noone would be the wiser, which is quite surprising considering the high leaching and long residual effect of hexazinone.

1400 ha of pine plantations surround Korweinguboora Reservoir in Geelong's water supply. Hexazinone has been leaching from this site since December 2004.

Also of concern is the detection of Atrazine, Glyphosate and Endosulfan in channels managed by Goulburn Murray Water. Low levels of Atrazine and Endosulphan were detected each year over a 3 year period in a project under the control of Goulburn Murray Water.(20) What was alarming was that although these detections were considered to be low, none were detected by Goulburn Valley Water, Coliban Water or Lower Murray Water, the authorities responsible for providing drinking water. High levels of Glyphosate were also found to be found in Broken Creek after weed control activities carried out by Goulburn Murray Water (24). Once again though, the events were not picked up by Goulburn Valley Water monitoring indicating that pesticide 'spikes' can get through the monitoring system undetected.

Broken Creek about 6km upstream from Nathalia. Glyphosate is used to kill aquatic weeds in this water supply and was recorded at high levels in 2005 above Nathalia. 2,4-D, well above guideline limits for drinking water was detected in Broken Creek at Numurkah in June 2005. Pentachlorphenol detected at Numurkah also in 2005.

The much publicised triazines Simazine and Atrazine were recorded in 4 instances by water authorities and 33 times in water supplies by a study by Goulburn Murray Water. Simazine was recorded at Rocky River (Orbost water supply) leaching from a bluegum plantation in August 2002 and atrazine was found in May 2006 at three locations on the Murray River by Lower Murray Water. The Atrazine readings at three locations in the Murray River (0.03µg/L), with lower levels detected by GMW in channels supplying towns Katatamatite, Kerang, Tatura, Rochester/Corop, West Boort?. The Simazine levels (0.2µg/L) in Rocky River catchment are also of concern and were detected by the company Harris Daishowa. These levels were a long way under the ADWG levels for Atrazine (40µg/L) & Simazine (20µg/L), however it would be erroneous to assume that because low levels of pesticides are detected that they are not having an impact. Levels of atrazine and simazine as low as 0.1 µg/L have been found to chemically castrate amphibians. See this website for further details.

"A number of organochlorine chemicals called persistent organic pollutants (POPs) were detected in Victoria’s water supplies. Although no longer used in Australia, most were applied extensively in agriculture from the 1950s to the 1990s when they were deregistered. These include the grain fungicide, hexachlorobenzene as well as insecticides like heptachlor, dieldrin and aldrin. Pentachlorophenol, a disinfectant, also used to treat wood was also detected. These POPs are very persistent in the environment partitioning to soil and sediment, as well as traveling vast distances via air and water currents. POPs are toxic and can cause cancer and other adverse health effects. They bioaccumulate in living things and are found in the blood and breastmilk of humans and wildlife. " Mariann Lloyd-Smith (National Toxics Network)

Again Barwon Water recorded a reading 3 times over the guideline limit for Dieldrin in October 1999. Melbourne Water’s Kallista supply also suffered from organochlorine problems in 2000, when traces of aldrin, heptachlor and lindane were found at St John Hill Reservoir Kallista. This reservoir sources its water from Silvan Dam, and little light has been shed on how these pesticides ended up being recorded at St John Hill. Heptachlor was also found at Katamatite by Goulburn Valley Water and high livels of Hepatchlor were detected in Yarra River sediments in the mid 1990's.

St John Hill Reservoir Kallista

Far from providing a detailed analysis of pollution of domestic water supplies, the information does allow analysis of risk areas. Because standardised pesticide monitoring is not required throughout Victoria, these results only give a broad picture of the situation. It is likely that other pesticides would be detected if testing was standardised. For instance Gippsland Water does no testing, yet some communities in the region lie downstream of irrigated farming and forestry land use.

The analysis also only touches on treatment techniques used to 'filter out' pesticides. It is Friends of the Earth’s assumption that these pesticides should not be leaching into waterways at all. To rely on the use of ‘filters’ is a high risk strategy particularly in small communities where sophisticated forms of treatment may not exist. For the sake of brevity, the discussion of filter/treatments only looks at communities which have been subject to pesticide pollution.

6. Results Tables

List of all results here

Number of Pesticides Tested for by Victorian Water Authorities 2007/8*

Breakdown of Pesticides Tested for by Victorian Water Authorities

Positive Results by water authorities (including Goulburn Murray Water) upstream of domestic water supplies (140).

Positive Results by water authorities above ADWG guideline limit (16)

Positive Results by water authorities above ADWG Health limit (1)

Positive Herbicide Detections incl Goulburn Murray Water (140)

Positive Herbicide above ADWG guideline limits (16) (8?)

Positive Herbicide above ADWG Health limits (1) (8?)

Locations of Positive Result above ADWG Health Guideline

Locations of Positive Results above ADWG Guideline Limits

Summary of Locations above ADWG guidelines.

Summary of locations based on all Results (140)

Years Detected (plus years detected above ADWG guideline in brackets)

Dates of Information provided by Freedom of Information

Range of Dates Covered Under FoI's