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

Camden Haven and Hastings 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

For the Camden Haven and Hastings river catchments a community discussion meeting attended by more than 90 people was held in Port Macquarie; a meeting for Aboriginal people was held at Kempsey (attended by representatives of many mid-north coast Aboriginal communities); and 19 written submissions were received.

Water quality and value of the resource

There was widespread support for protecting water quality. Almost all comments identified the environmental and community benefits (health, lifestyle, tourism and other economic activities) of protecting water quality and of limiting pollution. It was recognised, however, that this might affect the level of future development and there was concern that the costs involved should be equitably shared across the community.

There was a general concern with erosion and sedimentation issues in the catchment-including causeway construction in various places, runoff from council-owned roads, forestry activities, inappropriate land clearing, riverbank erosion, the threat to riparian vegetation, the role of fencing, and controlling cattle access to streams. Another frequently mentioned issue was sedimentation of holes in the streambed from which irrigators have historically drawn their water, and the re-digging of those holes by irrigators. The build up of gravel bars in various places, the possible need to dredge estuarine areas and the impact of power-boat waves on stream banks were also frequently mentioned.

There was concern over water quality during low flows, and whether the quality and quantity would remain adequate for town water supply. The provision of the new off-river storage at Cowarra was welcomed, but improved water quality monitoring at the Koree offtake point was called for. Effluent treatment and disposal from both town sewerage systems and from rural industries (piggeries and dairies) was of concern to some. Nutrient discharges were not generally seen to be an issue, and algal blooms (which occur occasionally) were not seen to be a significant problem.

The catchment community supported all the proposed environmental values and the corresponding objectives needed to maintain these. A healthy aquatic ecology (protecting aquatic ecosystems), safe swimming (primary contact recreation), oyster-growing (aquatic foods), water looking pleasant and clean (visual amenity), being able to drink the water after some treatment (drinking water supply), being able to irrigate (irrigation water supply), being able to use the water for household purposes (homestead water supply), and watering livestock (livestock water supply) were particularly significant uses within the catchment. It was generally felt that the option of obtaining the highest quality water (basic river health and advanced human uses) was most desirable. Many suggested that this effectively represented the status quo in various parts of the catchment.

River flows

Most community concern related to river flow and water availability issues. Equitable access to water, especially under low-flow conditions, was a widespread concern. Most submissions and comments acknowledged the need to use less water, but there was concern that the burden of this might be borne by licensed irrigation users, with unlicensed riparian users and urban consumers being unaffected. This was a significant concern given the proliferation of smaller 'hobby' farms in the catchments in recent times.

While some people felt that improved enforcement of existing regulations and powers was required, there was also concern that over-regulation of particular community sectors could lead to community conflict. There were general calls for the rural community to be permitted and encouraged to construct off-river storages, which could be filled during times of high river-flows. There was criticism of the difficulty in obtaining approval for such storages. On a related issue, it was suggested that urban water users be permitted and encouraged to install rainwater tanks as a way of reducing urban demand on the river. It was suggested that irrigators could stagger pumping times to lessen the potential impact on the river.

In general, the community regarded the most important flow issues as being related to low or absent flows, managing groundwater (both for the use of groundwater and for minimising the exposure of acid sulfate soils), retaining some natural variability in the flow regime, minimising the impact of instream structures, and protecting the estuary. The community recognised that there would need to be alterations to the current patterns of water use, but wanted the cost to be equitably distributed and not focused on any particular sector. Submissions from the dairy industry were particularly concerned about this issue.

There was concern that, because irrigators (including cotton growers) had received a 'poor press' in other situations, they were being blamed for many perceived problems that were really the result of normal conditions in the catchment. Community education was seen as being necessary in this regard. The proposed '80 percentile rule' was seen as causing potential hardship for some irrigators.

The community was generally keen to have a greater role in the management of the river and its water. It was suggested that water user groups, Landcare groups and other community groups could have a large role to play in monitoring the river, encouraging (or enforcing) wiser and more equitable water use, monitoring and managing riparian vegetation and developing better planning instruments. To take on these roles, the community said it would need better quality and more readily available information than is currently available.

Major issues

The process of developing the objectives identified major issues that were seen to need progressive action to achieve healthy and viable Camden Haven and Hastings river catchments. Comment on some of these is included in Section 3, in the supporting information for the recommended objectives. The major needs identified were to:

• protect existing riparian vegetation and restore it where necessary
• consider the advantages and disadvantages of fencing to prevent stock access. There are concerns that fences may exacerbate flooding, and may encourage the growth of exotic species such as camphor laurel and privet. The question of who would pay would need equitable consideration. One suggested option to reduce impacts was to provide stock watering systems, which would reduce the need for stock to access rivers and streams.
• adequately monitor and account for all riparian use of water, as this use was increasing. There were suggestions that unlicensed riparian usage may need to be curtailed.
• reduce the stress on rivers where this has been identified as an issue
• protect rivers with high conservation values. As a guide, such rivers should not be allowed to further degrade in water quality or flow regime, and may require restoration where they have poor water quality, a changed flow regime, or habitat loss or degradation.
• improve management of the estuary and lower floodplain. There was considerable community concern about this issue-in particular, about water quality and acid sulfate soils (associated with flood mitigation, drainage and development works). There was concern that permanent opening of floodgates to reinstate a more natural water regime may lead to salinisation of currently fresh groundwaters, thereby compromising existing activities dependent on that groundwater. There was also concern that some land uses in these areas may need to be altered, in which case equity issues would be important.
• provide more information on managing aquatic environments and water resources. In particular, there were calls to improve, and better coordinate, the information base on water quality, flow monitoring and biological health.
• 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.
• enable the local community to be actively involved in developing future strategies and actions associated with the interim environmental objectives.

Further proposed actions had varying levels of support:

• Some people felt that controls on inappropriate development could be needed and that existing problems might need to be reversed.
• Reforestation of certain areas within the catchment was canvassed by some members of the community.
• There were divergent opinions over the desired status of Lake Innes. This was once a freshwater system but, following works on the channel between Lake Innes and Lake Cathie in the 1930s, Lake Innes became a saltwater system. Several people wanted Lake Innes to be returned to its previous freshwater status.

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, funding is in place for programs 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