Freshwater ecosystems

A respect for nature ethos. There is a widely held ethical basis for conserving our biodiversity. It is expressed in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity in the following terms: 'We share the earth with many other life forms that warrant our respect, whether or not they are of benefit to us. Earth belongs to the future as well as the present; no single species or generation can claim it as its own”.

167 Tim Bond, SA DEH; pers.comm. 29/9/00, 16/2/01.

168 Several other sites will be the subject of NHT applications in the next few months. SA is trying to be more specific with its CAR strategy for wetlands by holding meeting with regional staff to identify wetlands likely to have high representative values, as well as those which are under serious threat. This is being done with the aim of better prioritising the type of wetlands to be targeted at a regional level.

169 "While there is no statutory requirement, local government can be encouraged to consider biodiversity issues as part of the rezoning/policy development process. For example, areas of natural significance can be zoned as ‘Conservation Zones’. The Plan Amendment process requires local government to ensure policies are consistent with the State’s Planning Strategy. The Strategy has a section on Environment/Natural Resources". Gary Mavrinac, email 26/2/01.

170 Brenton Grear’s comments: “Both sites could be referred to as "freshwater rising springs". The Water Allocation Plan for the Comaum-Caroline Prescribed Wells Area sets out quite stringent guidelines for management of the underground water resources of the eastern portion of the Lower South East. Adherence to the monitoring and extraction objectives are not being satisfactorily implemented by the DWR (now –2002- DWLBC) and the SECWMB. Very worrisome proposals do exist to further exploit the confined (deeper) aquifer. I'm not sure of a quantification of "massive" but there has been a significant downward trend in ouflow volumes from Eight Mile Creek and the Piccaninnie Pond outlet creek”.

171 According to the Department of Environment and Heritage's web site: "The South East Region of South Australia has extensive groundwater resources and is regarded as one of the State's most important natural assets. Fifty percent of the State's irrigation water is pumped from the South East limestone aquifers. With only half of the available groundwater resources allocated, the confined and unconfined aquifers of the Lower South East offer on of the few significant opportunities for further development of natural water resources in the State".

172 See the SA State Water Plan 2000, section on "Managing the health of water-dependent ecosystems".

173 Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board (2000) Executive summary, p.iii.

174 As advocated by Alex Gardner (2000).

175 WRC informed me (email 19/1/01) that: "NRM is covered by four different agencies: Agriculture WA, the WRC, the DEP, and CALM, with the Ministry for Planning, and the Department of Land Administration also having roles. It is therefore impossible to consider NRM as coming under one piece of statute and one agency only. The approach being used in WA is to work with a range of acts and agencies to use currently available legislative tools to achieve good NRM."

176 In other words, once a NRM Plan had been examined and endorsed by State government, both State and local government would be obliged to take into account the contents and recommendations incorporated in the plan when considering development approvals, or when preparing local or regional planning strategies.

177 The WRC informed me (email 19/1/01): "The Commission's view is that the NRM groups and the new water management committees should not be integrated. The water management committees will be dealing specifically with allocation issues and could be likened to ‘Bank Boards of Management’. This is not the same as NRM and there could be considerable conflict if the two issues were combined, especially when dealing with the issue of environmental water provisions and licensing".

178 Government of WA (2000:8)

179 Either the Rangelands Committee, or the Salinity Committee -Government of WA (2000:8).

180 The WRC informed me (email 19/1/01): "The approach that has been used is a bottom-up one, where regional groups have essentially set themselves up (with considerable government agency assistance, and the agencies are represented on all groups). The State believes this has allowed much more ownership of both the process and the groups by the community, as opposed to statutory authorities such as the Victorian CMAs, which are not generally popular".

181 Refer to the discussion of statutory objectives and principles in the Model Water Management Frameworks section of the Only One Planet website.

182 Government of WA (2000:8)

183 Presumably those set out in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, endorsed by the WA government in 1992.

184 This is an important oversight, particularly as the policy endorses these principles in an earlier section. For a discussion of the importance of sustainability principles, see the section on environmental principles at http://www.onlyoneplanet.com.au/ .

185 For more detail, see http://www.onlyoneplanet.com/Submission_WA_waterways.doc .

186 WRC website Nov 2000: Immediately following the WRC goal statement, we find an emphasis only on water quality: " The Commission is developing a series of documents to provide guidance in water quality management issues. The policy and guideline documents below are part of a series being prepared by the Commission and forms part of the following hierarchy of documents for water quality protection".

187 Some of which may be amongst the world's most biologically diverse and important.

188 This has not yet commenced, but appears the logical progression of the 1997 commitments.

189 After an abortive attempt to develop consolidated water legislation in 1990.

190 It is worth noting that the COAG agenda has motivated significant change primarily in water allocation legislation, rather than in legislation dealing with water quality, or (in those States that have it) catchment management. In my view the fragmentation of catchment management frameworks from water allocation frameworks remains a major stumbling block for efforts to control cumulative effects.

191 Water pollution controls are often found in multiple State statutes, and WA is no exception. Here pollution is now primarily controlled through the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, despite the existence of provisions in the Waterways Conservation Act.

192 This has been achieved in NSW's Water Management Act 2000. See also the discussion of environmental principles at www.onlyoneplanet.com.au . In particular, note the use of environmental principles in a recent Victorian Bill.

193 See s.40 of the Victorian Water Management Act 1989, and the Model Water Management Framework discussed on at www.onlyoneplanet.com.au . While Schedule 1 clause 7 lists matters that the Commission is to have regard to when considering licence applications, this does not provide a sufficient framework to guide the preparation of management plans. However, at least a start has been made which may provide a footing for subsequent amendment of the Act.

194 Water and Rivers Commission 1998:33.

195 See, for example, section 26GX.

196 Compared, for example, with those introduced in Tasmania's recent Act.

197 As the NSW Water Management Act 2000 does.

198 Any ecosystem expertise will do, under the provisions of the amended Act.

199 Where water use is the prime focus of the committee.

200 Gardner and Setter 1998.

201 Note the "have regard to" list in section 24(4).

202 See section 25(2)(b), and section 28(3)(b).

203 See section 47 - creating overlap with powers of both the EPA and local government.

204 It should be understood that the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 is merely a statute to establish the Water and Rivers Commission and was not intended to be a resource management statute. It does establish a Board so as to ensure community values are incorporated at a high level but leaves consultation prescriptions to the functional legislation (Rob Banyard 22/1/01).

205 See section 10.

206 Email from WRC 19/1/01.

207 The following two paragraphs are extracted from WRC (1999a:2).

208 The following three paragraphs are extracted from WRC (1999a:3).

209 See WRC (2000:6).

210 WRC (1999b:2).

211 Email 19/1/01: "The Allocation Plan was produced in 1999 prior to the release of the Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia (2000). In addition, there was an expectation that a large user of one of these supplies would move from the area thereby substantially reducing over-allocation. The Commission recognises its responsibilities in accordance with it's EWP policy (2000). Accordingly, the Commission has a program in place to address EWPs on a priority basis, to review previous plans and establish new allocation plans as resources become available."

212 The WRC began using holistic methods in 1990 (WRC email 19/1/01).

213 Pers.comm. Rod Banyard 22/1/01.

214 Government of Tasmania 2000.

215 NPWAct, several categories, depending upon management purpose and objectives.

216 According to the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, David Llewellyn, in a letter written to the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.

217 According to the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, David Llewellyn, in a letter written to the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.

218 Tasmania is committed to the precautionary principle through international, national and State policy. The precautionary principle is a key principle listed in:
INTERNATIONAL

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992.

Ratified by the Australian Government 1992.

NATIONAL

InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992.

Endorsed by the Premier of Tasmania on 1 May 1992.

The National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992.

Endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (including the Premier of Tasmania) at its meeting on 7 December 1992.

The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996.

Endorsed by the Premier of Tasmania 1996.

STATE

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.

An Act of the Tasmanian Parliament; refer to schedule 1 part 2 section 3(h).

State Coastal Policy 1996; section 2.1.5

A policy passed by the Tasmanian Parliament under the provisions of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997; section 6.1(e)

A policy passed by the Tasmanian Parliament under the provisions of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

Draft State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 1999;

Attachment: Guidelines to Implementation, Clause 6.5.

This Draft Policy replaced the 1998 State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land, and has been declared an Interim State Policy in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993, with immediate effect.

219 Government of the Northern Territory (1999).

220 Government of the Northern Territory (2000)

221 The goal: "to enable those species and ecological communities threatened with extinction to survive and prosper in their natural habitats, and to minimise the chance of more species or communities becoming threatened".

222 In discussing water and sewage legislation (June 2000), the National Competition Council had this to say: "Not only is there the failure to have legislation before the Parliament, or even drafted, but in addition the Council has not been provided with advice that the NT Government has endorsed a clear reform path. This is the third assessment where the Council has assessed that the NT has not met institutional reform commitments. Given the failure to make significant further progress on this 1998 commitment, the Council is of the view that a suspension of NCP payments is the only appropriate recommendation" (Supplementary Second Tranche Assessment, p.136).

223 Ian Smith, Controller of Water Resources NT, email 23/2/2001.

224 Under current administrative practice, no extraction licence is required for groundwater bores drawing less than 15 litres per second.

225 Relating, for example, to environmental, equity or sustainability concerns. See for example s.40 of Victoria's Water Act.

226 The owner or occupier of land may, under s.40(2) (a) drain the land in accordance with "this Act" and the Soil Conservation and Land Utilization Act, or (b) for the retention or conservation of water for use on the land, construct, operate, maintain, repair or alter a dam or other water storage or works (other than prescribed works) not in a waterway, - if the flow or likely flow of water in or into a waterway is not materially [my emphasis] diminished or increased thereby.
In my view, the use of the term materially, in its common law definition, makes this provision so loose that it will, in practice, be un-enforceable.

227 Brian Wilkinson, ACT govt, email 28/2/01.

228 Nature Conservation Strategy 1998: “A respect for nature ethos. There is a widely held ethical basis for conserving our biodiversity. It is expressed in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity in the following terms: 'We share the earth with many other life forms that warrant our respect, whether or not they are of benefit to us. Earth belongs to the future as well as the present; no single species or generation can claim it as its own”.

229 Water Resources Act 1998; Section 3. Objects

The objects of this Act are—

(a) to ensure that the use and management of the water resources of the Territory sustain the physical, economic and social well being of the people of the Territory while protecting the ecosystems that depend on those resources; …

230 Brian Wilkinson, ACT govt, email 28/2/01.

231 See Table 4.2 in the text.

232 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.

233 The SA Water Resources Act 1997 establishes tiered levels of management, and tiered management instruments, duty-linked to the objects of the Act. Encompassing ICM, this framework has the potential to develop and impose the necessary limits to manage cumulative effects. The framework is not, however, utilising this capability.

234 Although the basic framework to control cumulative effects is present in Queensland’s Water Act, the issue is entirely ignored in this statute, except in relation to permits to interfere with watercourses (s.268).

235 At present Victoria has no provisions allowing State control applicable to overland flows; however the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1995 does provide a good framework within which programs to manage cumulative effects might be developed..

236 In spite of commitments made in 1999, partly in compliance with the COAG agenda, a State ICM policy has not been developed.

237 See section 4.7 of the text.

238 Western Australia has a legislative and policy framework which, in theory, will allow sustainable catchment water usage caps to be set well ahead of a catchment entering a 'stressed' condition. This framework is not being applied in this way at present. The WRC's explanation is that shortages of staff (ie funding) mean that focus can only be applied, at this stage, on stressed catchments.

239 The NT situation is similar to the WA situation (see endnote above).

240 Both statute and policy limit the application of catchment caps to catchments where available water is over-allocated, or where available water is nearly fully allocated, and catchments are showing signs of stress.

241 See Water Resource Management Plan 1999, the Territory Plan and the Environment Protection Act.

242 While SA has no formal commitment to develop representative freshwater reserves, it is important to note that its terrestrial representative reserve program targets wetlands as a priority in land acquisitions (see the discussion in the text).

243 See text of section dealing with the ACT.

244 See, however, the discussion of the incorporation of wetlands within the terrestrial CAR reserve system.

245 Fifteen Representative River Reserves exist. Representative coverage of existing wetland reserves has yet to be assessed.

246 Freshwater ecosystem classification has not been finalised which would allow 'representative' freshwater ecosystems to be identified and selected as reserves; however, water ecosystems are being extensively protected within the IBRA terrestrial reserves framework.

247 Two applications were made by the Tasmanian State government for NHT funds to establish projects which would see the development of a comprehensive freshwater inventories. One project, focussing on river geomorphology, was funded by the Commonwealth. The second, focusing specifically on establishing the basis for a system of representative reserves, was not funded.

248 The most obvious problems here are national consistency and funding. There is no agreed approach to the classification of ecosystem type (that is: river, lake, wetland and aquifer ecosystem type) within a bioregional framework. All State inventory programs are under-funded.

249 Progress on expanding the existing inventories is slow, given failure to obtain requested NHT funds.

250 The Queensland program is in the planning phase.

251 NSW's new Water Management Act 2000 has provided a statutory framework for the identification and classification of watercourses according to three criteria: ecological value, stress, and risk (see discussion in text).

252 Victoria's Heritage Rivers Act 1992 protects a number of Heritage Rivers selected for their high natural, cultural (eg: landscape) or recreational values. These rivers are additional to the 15 Representative Rivers protected by government Order in Council.

253 See Table 4.1 in the text.

254 The WA WRC believes such a policy is unnecessary, as the few catchments where strong surface / groundwater links exist are already under integrated management programs (Rod Banyard, pers.comm 23/1/01).

255 South Australia's legislation requires coordination between plans, not within plans.

256 While the Water Act 2000 contains provisions requiring single planning instruments for surface and groundwater (with the explicit exception of artesian-related water) this requirement can be circumvented by simply not considering surface/groundwater interlinks. In other words, neither the Act, nor current policy, require that Water Resource Plans develop integrated management for surface and interlinked groundwater. However, the Qld govt now has an policy of integrated ground/surface water planning, and this approach has commenced in the Atherton / Barron River area.

257 Requirement by policy rather than statute (see text above).

258 The current Victorian Water Act 1989 provides for the preparation of groundwater management plans. The Victorian Government’s Farm Dam Discussion Paper 2000 floats the concept of statutory streamflow management plans, but does not propose the integration of groundwater and streamflow management plans.

259 See ACT Water Resources Management Plan 1999 section 5.4.

260 Integration of groundwater and surface water management occurs in the Millstream / Fortescue system and wetland protection at Wanneroo and Ellenbrook. Integrated surface water and groundwater allocation strategies have been developed at Lennard Brook where demand must shift from surface water to groundwater during times of low flow (Rod Banyard, pers.comm 23/1/01).

261 Policy (see above footnote) has commenced implementation.

262 The need for such programs has, however, been recognised by the WRC (Rod Banyard, pers.comm 23/1/01).

263 Compliance is, however, being addressed more thoroughly. A Compliance Unit was established in late 2000 within the Department for Water Resources SA (Env Institute of Aust Newsletter Feb 2001:16).

264 The new Water Act 2000 contains strong provisions which will encourage compliance auditing and enforcement.

265 The new Water Management Act 2000 contains strong provisions which will encourage compliance auditing and enforcement.

266 Not applicable: Brian Wilkinson (ACT gov): "There is an appropriate approach to compliance. The small size of the ACT and the large area of national parks and reserves means that routine air-photo interpretation is not warranted. However, it is a tool used as appropriate." Email 28/2/01.

267 Brian Wilkinson (ACT gov) pers.comm. 26/2/01, 28/2/01.

268 The NT Water Act s.22B provides that, where the Minister declares a Water Allocation Plan in respect of a Water Control District, the plan must include an allocation for the environment.

269 While many NT streams remain substantially unregulated, specific environmental flows, calculated in accordance with agreed national principles, have not yet been established as a component of Water Allocation Plans under s.22B of the Water Act 2000.

270 Tim Fisher (2000) has suggested that NSW is the only State to implement environmental flows enthusiastically and effectively.

271 "Surface flow" here means the capture of catchment runnoff away from defined watercourses.

272 The provisions of the NT Water Act s.40(2) are so weak as to provide no effective control.

273 Being addressed by the current Vic policy / statute improvement program.

274 The Act defines 'surface' water to include overland flow (s.4) so the provisions of the Act applying to surface water can be used to regulate harvesting of overland flow.

275 Water Management Act 1999, s.14 - for example.

276 This is, however, likely to eventuate in the near future.

277 However, this issue has been addressed by recent revisions in both policy and statute, and surface flows in southern Qld catchments feeding the Murray-Darling should soon come under State control.

278 The ACT's water allocation and licensing procedures include surface flow controls (Brian Wilkinson, ACT gov, email 28/2/01).

279 "The State Water Plan … discourages on-stream dams. In addition, some of the catchment water management plans contain policies for ‘water affecting activities’ which includes dams. As an author of the policies, I know that they do discourage on-stream dams, as well as addressing capacity and environmental flows." Gary Mavrinac, email 26/2/01.

280 UC - under consideration. Refer Farm Dams (Irrigation) Review Committee (December 2000) Draft Report: recommendation 13.

281 An informal departmental policy exists discouraging on-stream dams "where inappropriate" (B.Wilkinson email 28/2/01). However, there is no written policy, and no reference to the need to encourage off-stream dams in departmental farmer extension material (see "Information sheet 4: Water Resources Act 1998: Information about dams).

282 As in the ACT, an informal departmental policy exists discouraging on-stream dams, although there is no written policy, and no reference to the need to encourage off-stream dams in departmental farmer extension material.

283 "Weak" means that fish passage provisions are set in policy or statute, but not effectively implemented. Tasmania, for example, has strong fish passage provisions in the Inland Fisheries Act, however they are not effectively implemented - in a political climate that places a high priority on encouraging the building of dams. Fish passage is included in the assessment criteria for medium and large dam proposals. "Strong" means that an effective implementation program is underway. Key elements of implementation include: (a) accurate mapping and auditing of dams, weirs, and other impediments; (b) a program for the identification and removal of unnecessary impediments; (c) readily available written guidelines on fish passage provisions for small and medium dams are available; (d) policy requires all new major on-stream dams must have fish passage facilities.

284 Brian Wilkinson (ACT govt) email 28/2/01: "Fish passage needs are being addressed adequately. Whilst the ACT does not have a formal fish passage policy (because of the small number of barriers), the requirements for fish passage are addressed in the Threatened Species Action Plans, and management plans for the MRC. They were covered in: Lintermans, M. (2000). The Status of Fish in the Australian Capital Territory: A Review of Current Knowledge and Management Requirements (Technical Report 15, Environment ACT, Canberra). The ACT has constructed fish ladders on two barriers in the last year and has just commence planning for a third. There are only a small number of fish barriers in the ACT some of which are required to prevent passage of pest species."

285 The draft Waterways WA Policy does acknowledge intrinsic values, although in a somewhat muted way.

286 NSW Biodiversity Strategy p.4, and the Water Management Act 2000, 5(2)B.

287 Refer to: Government of the Australian Capital Territory (1998) Nature Conservation Strategy; page 4.

288 Bill O'Connor, a Victorian fisheries scientist, has offered the following personal comment:

I’m not keen on percentage figures for reserves being used - such as 15% that was used in the RFA process. With RFA, in many cases this has led to 15 % being protected and the remainder of the forest being ‘up for grabs’ to be exploited.

If this system was introduced for streams (for example in an area like East Gippsland), where there are still many relatively natural rivers, 15% would end up protected and the rest (which is a lot of rivers) would be available for exploitation in the future...such as for dams. This approach would be very risky. We need to ensure that all or most East Gippsland rivers and streams elsewhere are totally protected.

Personally, I think all rivers and creeks in the state need permanent protection from further exploitation , particularly since in so many areas, they are degraded or partly degraded.

289 Bill O'Connor, a Victorian fisheries scientist, has offered the following personal comment:

The term ‘no net loss’ shouldn’t be used. It opens up possibilities where some rivers will be permitted to degrade in exchange for others being improved. It’s a term that has been used for vegetation, and has caused a lot of problems. The term ‘no net loss’ is now out of favour. I would suggest that we want ‘no further degradation of freshwater ecosystems anywhere [in Victoria] and an improvement of all these ecosystems across the board’. One device to achieve some of this would be to introduce a reserve system.

290 Another name would be “Catchment Management Council” - after Alex Gardner (2000).

291 It should be noted that the 15% target of the RFA has been focused on forest ecosystems, rather than applied more generally to terrestrial ecosystems. Of Australia's 80 IBRA regions, only 28 have more than 10% of their area protected by reservation, and 23 have less than 2% protected. (O'May 1999 Table 3.2).

292 See the discussion of the Ramsar wetland definition above.

293 The term used here: "State-wide" should be understood as strategies developed within the national bioregional (IBRA) framework, by the States, using complimentary management approaches for IBRA regions overlapping State borders. Data would then be incorporated within an ICM framework focusing on major river basins, for the purposes of developing catchment management plans which included biodiversity conservation components.

294 It should be noted that the “reservation” of discrete freshwater areas, without attention to the management of their catchments, may be of little use. I was saddened to visit Ewens Ponds and Piccaninny Ponds in South Australia early in 1999, and see vastly reduced spring flows feeding these ponds. Presumably, water abstraction from the limestone aquifers feeding these ponds is to blame.

295 Outstanding examples of sites which need urgent reservation to protect site-specific values are the artesian springs associated with the Great Artesian Basin (mound springs). These unique habitats contain diverse endemic fauna (fishes, invertebrates). While there are some that are now protected in South Australia virtually none of those in Queensland are protected, including the group with the largest endemic fauna (Edgbaston Springs). There is increasing evidence of extraordinary endemism in some groups (especially molluscs and crustaceans) where many taxa are confined to single streams or watersheds. (Pers.comm. Winston Ponder, Australian Museum, 3/8/00).

296 Nevill (2000b).

297 This is explicitly recognised, for example, by the NSW framework groundwater policy (see references) where it is stated that: "the policy is designed to establish… a coordinated program for policy development, reporting and review" (NSW Government 1997:10).

298 For this to happen, both the NRS Scientific Advisory Committee and the Minister need to be convinced of the importance of reserving freshwater ecosystems.