NSW Water Quality and River Flow Objectives About the Objectives Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water   Select from the scrolling list, statewide map or catchment list Select a catchment Barwon-Darling and Far Western Bega River Bellinger River Border Rivers Brunswick River Camden Haven and Hastings River Castlereagh River Clarence River Clyde River and Jervis Bay Cooks River Georges River Gosford and Northern Beaches Lagoons Gwydir River Hacking River Hawkesbury-Nepean River Hunter River Karuah River and Great Lakes Lachlan River Illawarra Lake Macquarie and Tuggerah Lakes Macleay River Macquarie-Bogan River Manning River Moruya River Murray River Murrumbidgee River and Lake George Nambucca River Namoi River Richmond River Shoalhaven River Sydney Harbour and Parramatta River Towamba and Genoa River Tuross River Tweed River Williams River

Nambucca River
Community comment on the objectives

| Contents | Background | Consultation | Objectives | WQOs | RFOs | Glossary | Bibliography | Map | At a Glance |

• Overview
• Water quality and value of the resource
• River flows
• Major issues
• Existing programs

Overview

A community discussion meeting attended by more than 60 people was held at Macksville, a meeting for Aboriginal people was held at Kempsey (attended by representatives of many mid-north coast Aboriginal communities), and 20 written submissions were received. Some members of the community expressed the view that the Bellinger, Nambucca and Coffs Harbour catchments should not be combined in one catchment report, so the Nambucca results have been presented separately in this report.

Water quality and value of the resource

The community identified a wide range of environmental values that it wished to protect, including recreation and tourism, agriculture and irrigation, aquatic ecosystems, drinking water, and production of fish, shellfish and crustaceans in the lower estuarine areas. There was strong support for achieving high water quality levels, and for protecting existing water quality if it was already suitable. Overall, the highest quality water (which would support basic river health and advanced human uses), as defined in the discussion paper (EPA 1997), was the most commonly nominated option for the Nambucca catchment, but there were divergent views regarding the actions that achieving this objective would entail. Some people considered that this meant that nothing needed to be done (because existing water quality was satisfactory), whereas others considered it would need concerted action to improve existing water quality. These differing perspectives reflected the views of many people who indicated that water quality in the Nambucca catchment varied widely between localities, and that this needed to be taken into account in developing and implementing water management plans.

Some local agricultural interests said they found the interim environmental objectives 'totally unacceptable' in their present form. Written submissions from some participants indicated that they would have liked the meeting to have had a broader focus, making it more conducive to exploring the full range of community views.

The community recognised that there would be some costs involved in achieving good water quality, but felt these costs should be spread across the broader community (instead of targeting a limited number of groups), since the benefits of a healthy river system could be enjoyed across the community as a whole. Concerns were also expressed regarding the degree to which stock access to streams would need to be managed, and who would pay for any infrastructure required.

River flows

The community expressed a range of views about river flow objectives. Some people thought the objectives had little relevance to a coastal catchment such as the Nambucca River catchment, but others considered that many were indeed relevant. Objectives mentioned most often were those of protecting pools in dry times, protecting low flows, managing groundwater, minimising the impact of instream structures, and maintaining estuarine processes. Potential access restrictions associated with protecting the resource during times of little or no flow caused most concern for people currently extracting water from the river. There were also concerns that any restrictions on access as a result of implementing river flow objectives should be equitably spread across the whole community, and not confined to one or two sectors. Improved monitoring of both river health and extractions was also requested in a number of submissions. There was strong support for close local involvement in future development and implementation of actions associated with river flow objectives.

Major issues

The process of developing the objectives has identified several major issues that the community felt needed progressive action to achieve a healthy and viable Nambucca River catchment (comment on some of these is included in the supporting information on the recommended objectives in
Section 3):

• Control excessive riverbank erosion and protect riparian vegetation (restoring it where needed).
  In associated action, protect the habitat of native animals, revegetate as needed, and control erosion generally, as well as sedimentation, weeds and land degradation.
• Limit gravel extraction. Extraction was seen as inappropriate or excessive where it had the potential to affect water quality and surface flows.
• Control sources of bacterial contamination in the estuary. This contamination was seen as an important issue given its potential implications for the oyster-growing industry, and recreation and tourism, in the Nambucca River catchment.
• Minimise the impacts of forestry activities on water quality, recharge and river flow rates in various areas of the catchment.
• Monitor and account for all uses of water from the river. The increasing use of water under riparian access rights is causing concern.
• Reduce the stress on rivers where this has been identified as an issue.
• Protect rivers with high-conservation value. As a guide, such rivers should not be allowed to further degrade in water quality or flow regime, and may require restoration where water quality is poor, the flow regime has changed, or habitat has been lost or degraded.
• Improve management of the estuary and lower floodplain (in particular, water quality). Bacterial pollution and increased nutrient levels, from both point sources and stormwater runoff from farms and towns was mentioned as a concern.
• Provide more information on managing aquatic environments and water resources. In particular, people asked for the information base on water quality, flow monitoring and biological health to be further developed and communicated.
• Respect Aboriginal spiritual and cultural values associated with rivers, creeks, wetlands and lakes; and traditional Aboriginal management roles in, and uses for, these areas-including as a source of traditional foods that are safe to eat.
• Actively involve the local community in developing future strategies and actions associated with the interim environmental objectives.

Existing programs

Some of the above issues already receive considerable attention and resources. Communities, through Landcare and other programs, are undertaking important on-the-ground projects. The NSW Government has established and funded programs such as Blue-Green Algae Management, Estuary Management Program, Floodplain Management Program, Wetlands Action, the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program, the NSW Shellfish Quality Assurance Program and Salt Action. At the Commonwealth level, programs are being funded through Landcare and the Natural Heritage Trust.

Where programs such as these are already underway in the catchment, they need to be acknowledged and, where possible, incorporated in water and estuary management plans.

This page was published 1 May 2006