Freshwater ecosystems

4.6 The need for new directions in strategic planning

Large water infrastructure proposals may be effectively dealt with through State environmental impact assessment (EIA) mechanisms, if the State has comprehensive inventories of freshwater ecosystems which allow effects to be assessed within a State framework (Nevill 2002). However, the above discussion suggests that existing EIA mechanisms cannot be relied on to produce “strategic” outcomes, even with such inventories, when the cumulative effects of small-scale incremental development are considered. EIA procedures, in all Australian States, are designed to assess the impacts of large proposals. They are not designed for the assessment of small developments – and would indeed be impractical to use in such cases due to their complexity.
As a society, we are not behaving in a rational way when it comes to the management of cumulative effects in the water industry. We subject a proposal to build a large dam (say 100 GL) to intense scrutiny. Yet we allow the development of 1000 small to medium-sized dams over a 20 year period, with only cursory assessment procedures. These smaller dams, when assessed in total, may have a greater environmental impact than the single large dam we have examined so closely. The same can be said for wider cumulative issues: the gradual expansion of water developments through the extraction of surface and groundwaters, the construction of weirs or levee banks, wetland draining, and the expansion of irrigated agriculture.
I argue that the only way to ensure effective protection of river and wetland health in the face of the cumulative impacts of incremental infrastructure development, is to build the management of cumulative effects, including biodiversity protection measures, explicitly into strategic planning. Limits must be established on the exploitation of water resources within each catchment. The obvious tool is the use of ICM planning, or NRM planning within a catchment framework.
In most Australian States, environmental flow programs are beginning to enter ICM frameworks; but this is not enough. Within each ICM catchment, areas and values related to freshwater biodiversity must be clearly identified, and the precautionary principle⁵³ must be applied in their protection. Precautionary actions must be taken to control the abstraction of both surface and groundwater, the construction of impediments to fish passage, and in some cases land use within the catchment – in order to protect catchment biodiversity.
This is not currently happening in any Australian jurisdiction. Advances are being made, but they do not go far enough. New South Wales probably has the best statutory framework for managing cumulative effects, but it is not being enthusiastically applied to manage such effects, and here the question of the timing of catchment caps is critical (see the discussion of NSW programs below). Caps are being applied only when the catchment is already in crisis.
Western Australia has a poor legislative framework, but a good policy approach to setting catchment water allocation limits well before the catchment becomes stressed. However, again, the application of this policy approach appears to be falling short of its ideals and intent (see the discussion of WA programs below and in Maher et.al. 2002).
To some extent, such failures can be attributed to the fact that State water resource management statutes fail to tackle the issue of cumulative effects.

Table 4.1: State comparisons: legislative references to cumulative effects:

State	Act	Ref:	Comments
WA	Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (modified to meet COAG requirements in 2000).	The Act contains no reference to cumulative effects.	According to WRC 2000, a water allocation process is established which routinely sets a catchment cap, then allocates water under that cap. However, in spite of this progressive policy position, the lack of reference to the management of cumulative effects in the Act appears to be a major oversight. See Appendix 3.
NT	Water Act 2000	The Act contains no reference to cumulative effects.	Water Allocation Plans could, in theory, implement catchment caps – essential for the management of cumulative effects; see s.22B which requires that allocations must be within the sustainable yield of the catchment. However the heavy reliance on the discretion and judgement of the Minister and the Controller of Water Resources makes the NT framework exceptionally vulnerable to pressure from short-term or vested interests.
Qld	Water Act 2000	The Act's only reference to cumulative effects is s.268.	Plans are established under s.38-47 of the Act. According to DNR: "Water Resource Plans … set clear limits on the water available for consumptive purposes. Additional water development is not permitted if these limits would be exceeded. (DNR email 20/2/01). Section 268 deals with river 'interference' permits.
NSW	Water Management Act 2000.	s.5(d)(d) - statement of principle.	"the cumulative impacts of water management licences and approvals and other activities on water sources and their dependent ecosystems should be considered and minimised".
ACT	Water Resources Act 1998.	The Act contains no reference to cumulative effects.	Under the Water Resources Management Plan 1999, once necessary environmental flows have been set, water resources available for diversion or abstraction can be allocated - a similar approach to WA. The Territory Plan, the Water Resources Act and the Environment Protection Act all focus on outcomes to be achieved - which implies (probably requires) management of cumulative effects.
Vic	Water Act 1989; Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.	s.20(1)(d) of the WAct requires consideration of the cumulative effects of agricultural drains. Apart from this, neither Act contains any reference to cumulative effects	While the management of cumulative effects is not identified in 'purpose' or 'matters to be considered' statements in either Act, the framework resulting from the CLPAct provides for regional Catchment Management Authorities to develop Catchment Management Strategies, which can then achieve subordinate legislation status through the Env Protection Policy process (Env Prot Act 1970). However, all Vic statutes are deficient regarding objects and principles.
Tas	Water Management Act 1999.	The Act contains no reference to cumulative effects.	Tasmania's integrated catchment management program lacks a statutory base, and clear policy guidance. It is under-funded and poorly coordinated with other policy areas. Neither the Act or this program provide effective management provisions regarding cumulative effects (see discussion below).
SA	Water Resources Act 1997.	The Act contains no reference to cumulative effects.	The Act Part 7 provides a general framework for allocating environmental flows. Each Catchment Water Management Board must develop sustainable Catchment Water Management Plans, including Water Allocation Plans.

In summary, NSW is the only State possessing water management legislation which specifically recognises the important of cumulative effects, and need to control these effects.

Managing cumulative impacts depends, at the end of the day, on drawing 'lines in the sand'. Development cannot continue indefinitely within a finite catchment without producing degradation of the water resource. Limits on development must be set, and set well ahead of serious problems. Given the pressures on decision-makers created by applications for small developments, to be effective these limits must be precautionary, and must be absolute. In my experience, the only mechanism which can set such limits, and still achieve adherence to accepted sustainability and democratic principles, is integrated catchment management⁵⁴. Without exception⁵⁵, the current situation is that Australian jurisdictions are setting catchment limits only where significant water management problems already exist. Here it is already too late. Such an approach will never succeed in managing cumulative effects, or in protecting freshwater biodiversity.
Maher et.al.(2002) have developed a ‘model framework’ intended to assist the evolution of water resource legislation. Cumulative impacts are specifically addressed within this framework of recommended statutory provisions. The use of precautionary caps is specifically examined and recommended.
When good scientific evidence is available, precautionary caps and moratoriums can be relaxed in favour of more carefully prepared restrictions. However, if precautionary caps are not put in place in the interim, the lessons of the past clearly indicate that biodiversity values will be lost in favour of short-term economic considerations.