NSW Water Quality and River Flow Objectives |
 About the Objectives |
|
| Select from the scrolling list, statewide map or catchment list | ||
|
||||||
| Contents | Background
| Consultation | Objectives | WQOs | RFOs | Glossary | Bibliography | Map |
The Border Rivers catchment community discussion meeting was held at Inverell on 26 March 1998, and was attended by 100 people. Twenty-one written submissions were received, some of which represented the concerns of several people. Submissions came from individual people (including farmers), community and industry groups and government agencies. The proposed objectives were also discussed at a regional meeting on water reforms held at Moree for Aboriginal people.
People identified a range of uses and values of the Border Rivers. Most wanted the rivers to be a source of good quality water for a full range of valued water uses-including drinking water, primary and secondary contact recreation, irrigation, domestic uses and stock watering. The rivers provide a source of financial security for the community, which comes from industry and economic benefits gained from the overall water system, including a secure groundwater supply for bores. Of equal importance was sustaining the rivers' biodiversity, and the value of nature conservation.
People noted their awareness of the rivers' significance in terms of their visual and spiritual amenity for the community, including their importance to Aboriginal people.
Meetings and submissions noted that traditional Aboriginal values of the rivers had not been taken into account as specific objectives, and should be properly recognised in river planning. The Kamilaroi people had specific issues, recommendations and knowledge to contribute. Common concerns included ill health from swimming in and drinking the water, decline in flora and fauna and aquatic food sources; and lack of respect for Aboriginal spiritual, cultural and resource-use values and for places of special significance. Aboriginal communities also requested involvement in water management decisions (which relate to their traditional responsibilities in managing river health), and access to clean rivers for cultural activities.
Some people attending the Inverell meeting commented on the lack of detailed information in the discussion paper (EPA 1997), and felt that not receiving the discussion paper before the meeting was a barrier to making informed choices on environmental objectives. Most people, however, could make a choice at the meeting on what water values and uses they wanted protected, based on what they already use and value the river for in their local area.
There was overwhelming support for good water quality that would support basic river health and advanced human uses. People wanted either to maintain or improve current water quality, but mentioned the need to understand more about related costs.
There was also support for the more limited objective of achieving water quality sufficient for basic river health and basic human uses (either as a preferred choice or an alternative to achieving better quality)-particularly as a goal in the short term for waterways affected by more intense human use.
People who supported these options felt they would benefit from better environmental health, increased biodiversity (in particular, more native fish), cleaner drinking water, improved collection of information on river health, and enhanced quality of life for the community as a whole.
Riverbank instability, erosion, turbidity and sedimentation were noted as causing concern, as were the issues of illegal pumping and instream obstructions, and the occurrence of blue-green algal blooms. Reference was also made to the temperatures of water releases below dams being too cold to allow fish to breed. People also questioned the quality of drinking water for all sections of the community.
Specific proposals included action to:
Submissions from several people in the upper and lower parts of the catchment expressed concern about the unsuitability of the water for local ecosystems, safe recreation and drinking.
Some respondents felt that the major threat to water quality in this region was the impact of carp, which are present in large numbers and are seen to cause streambank erosion, deplete river plants and compete aggressively with native fish.
Overall, many people felt that the whole community should share the cost of restoring the river, as the whole community would benefit.
On the matter of river flows, people expressed concerns about the effects on the Border Rivers and adjacent catchment streams of:
There was overall support for all options for river flow objectives. Most support was given to objectives relating to:
The next most-favoured objectives were those aimed at:
Interest was also shown in protecting important rises in water levels, mimicking natural drying in temporary waterways and managing groundwater to support ecosystems.
It was generally agreed that more education, and regularly published information on trends in water quality and river flows, and on the obligations of water users, was warranted.
Specific proposals called for the removal of illegal obstructions, more research into monitoring, strict licensing of extractions, revegetating riverbanks, installing fish ladders, and better management of polluted runoff from urban and agricultural lands. People felt that the government should establish what the different needs of the community were, and ensure these needs were acknowledged and considered fairly. It was felt that all decisions needed to be site-specific.
People indicated that adoption of the objectives would be beneficial in leading to a sustainable water supply-seen as being essential to support farming, domestic and environmental needs. They asked how actions to implement objectives would be managed, being particularly concerned that there should be equitable access to the resource by all users.
Other benefits mentioned related to improved amenity for recreation, enhanced ecosystems, eradication of carp, increased income to the area, and associated benefits for future generations.
There was concern about the cost of implementing the objectives and managing a reduction in water available for irrigation. It was felt that the latter would adversely affect farm production and cause economic hardship.
Major issues that could need action to achieve a healthy and viable river system were identified. Comments on some of these are included in Section 3, as part of the supporting information for the recommended objectives. Proposals for remedial or conservation action were:
Additionally, people felt that action was needed to:
Some of the above issues already receive considerable attention and resources. Communities, through the Catchment Management Committee, Landcare and other programs, are currently undertaking important on-the-ground projects. The NSW Government has established and funded programs such as Blue-Green Algae Management, Floodplain Management Program, Wetlands Action and the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program. At the Commonwealth level, programs are being funded through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Landcare and the Natural Heritage Trust.
Significant effort and progress has already made by groups involved in catchment management initiatives. Major water quality management programs now under way for the catchment include:
Where management plans and programs such as these already exist, they should be acknowledged and, where possible, incorporated in the river management plan.
This page was published 1 May 2006