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 |
Community meetings were held in Bourke, Wilcannia and Walgett during March and April 1998. The Bourke meeting was attended by more than 300 people who reached a set of resolutions. Fifty submission forms were handed in by people at the Bourke meeting, of which 20% indicated support for greater protection of low flows. Regional meetings of Aboriginal people in Moree and Wilcannia submitted comments. Sixteen further written submissions came from cotton growers, water user associations, a shire council, environmental groups and individuals.
Concerns were expressed in some submissions and at the meetings that the Government has insufficient knowledge of the rivers, and that research is needed to gain a greater understanding before formulating policies for changing their management. There were several requests for further community involvement, education and consultation.
Although the meetings and submissions identified a variety of opinions on the current condition of the rivers, on their suitability for the desired uses and on the issues affecting the rivers, there was significant agreement on what people valued about the rivers and what they expected to use them for.
The meetings and submissions identified a diverse range of uses or values for the water and rivers in the Barwon-Darling and Far Western catchments. For example, of 50 individual submissions from the Bourke meeting, more than 64% referred to irrigation and associated economic values, 86% specifically said they valued their river for recreation, 32% specified swimming, 40% fishing, 26% stock water and 78% drinking or domestic use.
The meetings and submissions identified several key issues of concern, and made recommendations for overcoming some of these problems. Although there are some common themes, there are significant differences in the issues relating to the upper and lower parts of the Barwon-Darling River and the tributaries intersected by the Queensland border. No submissions were received from other far western catchments.
Some people in the Walgett meeting were uncertain about whether the water quality in their area is currently suitable for basic river health and all existing human uses (option 4 in the discussion paper (EPA 1997)). Some thought existing water quality management was satisfactory and requested the status quo option. Many other people-people in this meeting, at a regional Aboriginal meeting or writing submissions-raised concerns about blue-green algae or high nutrient levels; treated sewage or urban runoff entering the river; whether fish were safe to eat; suitability of water for swimming; loss of aquatic plants; or the river taking longer to clear up after high flows. People also requested improvement in water quality to achieve option 4; research into carp habitat life cycles and population increase; and better protection of native fish.
Two submissions supported almost all of the proposed flow objectives and substantial restoration of more natural flows. One of these stated that river bank erosion and slumping was as serious as the damage caused by over-extraction of water. Three submissions expressed concern that the indicative environmental flow rules then under consideration would have an inequitable effect on irrigators between Collarenebri and Walgett, and that achieving environmental objectives would have adverse economic effects on local towns.
Comments in the Walgett meeting were diverse. They included concerns about insufficient flow; over-allocation to irrigators in tributaries upstream; that changes to local irrigators' pumping rules would have adverse economic effects; and a view that flows in the Upper Barwon River had not been affected by irrigation upstream. Several of the proposed flow objectives were considered important. There were requests for smaller weirs; larger weirs; greater environmental flows; water in dams on tributaries to be allocated to stock and domestic users on the Barwon; no change until there was more research; respect for Aboriginal people's beliefs and needs; and negotiation of equitable sharing, considering all needs. Some people suggested that there should be more river gauges to enable accurate management of each flow event and greater accountability by and to water users.
Many people attending the Bourke meeting viewed the river in the upper part of the catchment as healthy, although affected by drought, and with little need for change. Most supported maintaining water quality as it is currently. Several people at the meeting raised concerns about blue-green algae or high nutrient levels; suitability of water for swimming; the need for the river to be cleaner; or improvement in water quality to achieve water quality suitable for basic river health and all existing human uses (option 4 in the discussion paper (EPA 1997)).
At the large meeting in Bourke, anger and concern were expressed, particularly regarding the process of developing environmental flow rules for the Barwon-Darling River and the effects of indicative rules being considered by the Barwon-Darling River Management Committee at the time of the meeting which would restrict irrigators' access to low flows. A resolution was passed expressing 'grave concern at the threat posed to Bourke's economy' as a consequence of the way water reforms were being implemented. The resolution specified six concerns and called on the Government to 'halt the present process, listen to local people and properly study the river's health'.
Some people were worried that river flow objectives would be an additional burden, or might be set by the Government instead of letting the Barwon-Darling River Management Committee work out better rules.
People at the meeting pointed out that the Darling is an 'event' flow river, significantly different from most others. Some saw change as unnecessary or wanted more research before any changes. Two of the four submissions referring to this area requested more research before management was changed and wanted the balance between all users or between protection of the economy and protection of the environment to be worked out by consultation with local people. Two submissions supported all flow objectives except RFO Minimise effects of dams on water quality, and requested decisive action by the NSW Government or the Barwon-Darling River Management Committee to achieve the objectives and to protect billabongs and wetlands.
Many submissions expressed a desire for higher quality water and the belief that this will require considerable effort and cost to the community. This was echoed at the meetings. There were concerns that the water now tended to be of much poorer quality than in the 1960s; that it causes health problems; and that town water is sometimes unfit to drink. Aboriginal people said they felt a traditional responsibility for the health of the river and concern that they could do nothing about it and that governments did too little.
Although carp and chemicals were mentioned as problems, the major causes of poor water quality were considered to be reduction of low flows and reduced frequency of freshes of about 10,000 megalitres, or 3 metre height, to suppress blue-green algae. Saline groundwater enters parts of the river when flow is very low. Replacement of natural rock bars which were removed last century was suggested as a means of reducing this salinity problem in some locations as well as increasing the amount of water left when the river stops flowing.
The submissions and meetings strongly supported the protection or reinstatement of more natural flows, including natural variation in flow levels. Long periods of very low flow without freshes caused worries about reliability of town water supplies, blue-green algae and social problems. Means of strongly encouraging greater efficiency of irrigation were discussed, such as increasing the price of water to include environmental costs. Some submissions also called for regionally managed flows to accommodate all users. One submission described the Menindee Lakes scheme as a man-made disaster.
Concerns were raised about water diversions in Queensland causing loss of water in the Culgoa, and affecting grazing production and the quality and quantity of water in the Darling River.
Works on the lower Warrego caused concerns about reduced quality and quantity of flows in the Darling.
Fears were raised about the potential for adverse effects on people and ecosystems along the Paroo River if irrigation from this river begins.
Economic costs to the community-infrastructure costs, management costs and loss of employment in the area-were all identified as potential costs of reducing the amount of water available to irrigation. Some people stated that they personally would lose income or employment.
The benefits perceived as resulting from improved water quality and river flows relate mainly to improved river system health, biodiversity, and greater recreational use and improved quality of life for those living near the Barwon or Darling rivers. Tourists would also benefit, so there would be better opportunities for new ecotourism enterprises. Some people expressed an expectation that achieving the proposed environmental objectives would result in social, cultural, health or economic benefits.
Much of the comment at the community discussion meetings focused on the establishment of environmental flow rules (see Section 5). The Barwon-Darling River Management Committee has recommended rules, which the Government has adopted. Consequently, no river flow objectives have been recommended for this river.
All submissions and many people in meetings identified problems with either the water quality or flows in the rivers of these catchments. The following issues were raised by a number of people:
A variety of recommendations were made:
Some of the above issues are already receiving considerable attention and resources. For example, communities are undertaking important on-the-ground projects through Landcare and other programs. The NSW Government has already put in place and funded many programs, including Salt Action, Blue-Green Algae Management, Floodplain Management Program, Wetlands Action and the Country Towns Water Supply and Sewerage Program. At the Commonwealth level, funding is in place for programs through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the Landcare Program and the Natural Heritage Trust.
This page was published 1 May 2006