review of the river murray act implementation strategy · 2015. 4. 27. · the river murray act...

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| 1 | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

REVIEW OF THE RIVER MURRAY ACT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

2011


COPYRIGHT: © Government of South Australia, through the Department for Water 2011. This work is Copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission obtained from the Department for Water. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Chief Executive, Department for Water, GPO Box 2834, Adelaide SA 5001.

DISCLAIMER: The Department for Water and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The Department for Water and its employees expressly disclaims all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing.


CONTENTS

FOREWORD 4

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW 6

2.1. Stakeholder consultation 6

3. KEY DEVELOPMENTS, PLANS AND STRATEGIES 7

3.1. Drought 7

3.2. Commonwealth legislation, policies and programs 7

3.3. State legislation, policies and strategies 8

4. REVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST PRIORITIES 11

4.1. Abate the clearance of vegetation 11

4.2. Achieve an environmental flow regime for the River 12

4.3. Improve water quality 13

4.4. Conserving and protecting heritage values 14

5. REVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST STRATEGIES 16

5.1. Providing advice or direction 16

5.2. Promoting integration 24

5.3. Undertaking or promoting programs 26

5.4. Enforcement and compliance 28

5.5. Adopting a leadership role in relation to management of

the Murray-Darling Basin 30

6. EMERGING ISSUES 32

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 34

LIST OF ACRONYMS 36

REFERENCES 37

APPENDICES I


FOREWORD

The River Murray Act 2003 was an innovative piece of legislation in 2003 that truly reflected the importance of a healthy River Murray system for South Australians. It showed an understanding of the need for and commitment to an integrated and coordinated approach to decision making for the River Murray. This concept has certainly proven its value throughout the difficult period of drought management and I believe it will show its continued relevance in the future as we consider the implications of the Basin Plan, climate change and major investment in river management infrastructure through Murray Futures.

As the River Murray system is recovering from the drought and with the new challenges facing us, it is a good time to reflect on the River Murray Act

Implementation Strategy and particularly, what has been achieved in the past five years, and opportunities for future improvements.

I wish to thank all the people who took the time to contribute to the review of River Murray Act Implementation Strategy and shared their experiences and insights into the management of this great River. This has resulted in a thorough analysis of the past five years work and will assist the Department for Water in developing a new Implementation Strategy for the River Murray Act 2003.

Hon Paul Caica MP

MINISTER FOR THE RIVER MURRAY


1. INTRODUCTION

The River Murray Act 2003 commenced on 24 November 2003 and aims to ensure that the protection and enhancement of the River Murray in South Australia is a paramount consideration for activities that have the potential to have an adverse affect on the River. The River Murray Act 2003 honoured a promise by the Government to protect the River Murray and for the first time afforded special protection and recognition of the River Murray’s special significance to South Australia; not only as an important water source but also as a complex ecological system with inherent cultural and heritage values.

The River Murray Act 2003 has broad Objects and Objectives for a Healthy River Murray (ORMs) which describe desired outcomes for the River (Appendix 1). The powers and functions of the River Murray Act 2003 apply within the River Murray Protection Area (RMPA) which includes the main stem of the river, the River Murray Floodplain Area and the River Murray Tributaries Area (Appendix 2).

The River Murray Act 2003 requires that an Implementation Strategy be created that outlines priorities and strategies for its implementation (section 21). The Implementation Strategy must:

set out the priorities that the Minister will pursue in order to achieve the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003;

set out the strategies that the Minister intends to adopt to meet those priorities; and

take into account the State Natural Resources Management Plan and the Planning Strategy.

The Implementation Strategy must be reviewed at least every five years. The current River Murray Act

Implementation Strategy (the Implementation Strategy) was completed in 2006 and this report provides

the first five yearly review of the Implementation Strategy.


2. METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW

The review uses a number of sources of information:

An analysis of key developments, plans, policies and strategies introduced for the River Murray since 2006 that have influenced the priorities and focus for implementation of the River Murray Act 2003 ;

An internal Department for Water (DFW) review of key learnings from the five years of River Murray Act 2003 policy development and administration; and

Feedback from stakeholder consultation.

2.1. Stakeholder consultation

Consultation on the review of the Implementation Strategy took place between April and May 2011. Various consultation methods were used to promote the review and seek written and verbal input from key stakeholders and the public. These include:

Letters to key stakeholders inviting them to have input by completing a questionnaire;

Workshops with targeted stakeholders to discuss issues relevant to the review;

Online consultation page and survey on the Water for Good (WFG) website;

Email sent to a subscriber list and other known stakeholders to promote the survey and invite responses via DFW Consultation mailbox; and

Presentations at key stakeholder forums to promote the review, provide background information on the Implementation Strategy, and invite input through the online survey.

Appendix 3 lists the stakeholders consulted. A copy of the survey questions and questionnaire are set out in Appendices 4 and 5. A total of thirty-seven questionnaires, survey responses and comments were received from individuals and from within agencies. These surveys were analysed in conjunction with input from the workshops to inform the findings of this report.


3. KEY DEVELOPMENTS, PLANS AND STRATEGIES

The context for management of the River Murray is constantly evolving and a number of major changes have occurred since the completion of the Implementation Strategy in 2006. Some of these support and complement the priorities and strategies in the current Implementation Strategy; others provide challenges and opportunities to rethink its focus into the future. This section outlines the major developments and drivers for change which have evolved in the last five years.

3.1. Drought

An unprecedented period of low rainfall and low flow affected the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) from 2006 to 2010, resulting in reduced water availability, low water levels, river bank stability issues and water quality concerns. These drought conditions have had a significant impact on how the River Murray Act 2003 was administered and have changed the focus of its implementation.

The drought resulted in the need for specific programs to prevent irreversible damage to ecological processes such as vegetation patterns and native species reproduction, and posed major challenges for environmental flows and water quality programs. Combined with the Global Financial Crisis, the drought has undoubtedly had a major impact on the level and rate of development in the region.

It has also resulted in a greater focus on the potential impacts of climate change on water security and water resource management and the need to consider a future with more variable and possibly declining rainfall and flows.

The drought also necessitated a shift in thinking to accommodate fluctuating water levels, particularly below Lock 1, in a broader management context. Development of a new operating context that addresses the climatic variability of the MDB needs to draw on these experiences and the return to more average weather conditions that has followed these drier conditions.

Throughout this report, the response to the drought and the relevance of the priorities and strategies of the Implementation Strategy within this context are considered in more detail.

3.2. Commonwealth legislation, policies and programs

3.2.1. Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan

The Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) was introduced to achieve integrated and sustainable management of water resources in the MDB in the national interest. It established the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), which was tasked with developing a Basin Plan, a draft of which is due for release in the near future. The Basin Plan will incorporate both an Environmental Watering Plan, to ensure that the best use is made of water available for environmental purposes, and a Water Quality and Salinity Management Plan, that will set water quality and salinity objectives for the MDB. A Guide to the Basin Plan was released in 2010.

The Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) sets out the broad framework for the management of SA’s water resources within the MDB and is central to all work relating to the River Murray within the State. The framework is continuing to evolve and may necessitate changes to the River Murray Act 2003 and associated documents (eg. the Implementation Strategy) in the future. It is possible that reforms in water resources management required under the new Basin Plan will lead to structural adjustment within the SA MDB. The River Murray Act 2003 may be the best mechanism to ensure that any adjustment process leads to sustainable outcomes for the River Murray.


3.2.2. Water for the Future (2008)

Water for the Future is a national framework that integrates rural and urban water issues. Buying back water to restore the environment is one of the priorities of Water for the Future. Water purchased must be used to protect and restore environmental assets.

A component of Water for the Future is the 10-year, $5.8 billion Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program. South Australia has developed the Commonwealth and State funded Murray Futures program under this initiative. The Murray Futures program includes up to $610 million for activities including:

Purchase of water entitlements from willing sellers, with water to be held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder;

Works to support an enduring response to the environmental problems facing the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth (CLLMM) site (with an Australian Government commitment of $168 million and an additional state commitment of $18 million); and

Undertaking measures to improve river health and increase the resilience of the River’s wetlands and floodplains from the Victorian border to Wellington ($78 million Commonwealth funding commitment, with an additional state commitment of $8.7 million, and $9.2 million for early works).

All of these activities will assist in achieving the ORMs set out under the River Murray Act 2003, but also pose some challenges, as they can result in infrastructure on the floodplain, and ongoing operational and maintenance needs.

3.3. State legislation, policies and strategies

3.3.1. State Natural Resources Management Plan

The State Natural Resources Management (NRM) Plan 2006 makes the following observations about the state and condition of the River Murray:

Salinity levels in the River Murray: Predicted to increase significantly over the next 50 years without further remedial action;

Other water quality in the River Murray: Moderate to poor; no significant change since 1998. Water quality in general shows a marked deterioration progressively downstream towards Tailem Bend; and

Use of water from the River Murray: In July 1997 diversions from the River Murray were capped at 1993/94 levels of development. Agreement has been reached to return 500 gigalitres of annual flow on average to the River by 2009, however more is required if the health of the river is to be restored.

These observations are listed as ‘cause for concern’ in that Plan. The Plan identifies the construction of Salt Interception Schemes along the River Murray as a strategy to address the increase in salinity in the River Murray. The strategies outlined in the State NRM Plan are relevant to the achievement of the ORMs and priorities of the Implementation Strategy, particularly those relating to water quality, environmental flows and integrating natural resources management into development planning and assessment processes. The State NRM Plan is being reviewed in 2011 and there may be opportunities to align future implementation strategies for the River Murray Act 2003 to this process.

3.3.2. The Planning Strategy

The Planning Strategy provides direction on land use and development in SA. This strategy consists of a number of separate documents, each of which covers a different area of the State. Of these, two are of particular relevance to the River Murray Act 2003; the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (2010) and the


Murray and Mallee Region Plan (2011). The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide contains targets to protect natural areas and functional ecosystems, minimise pollution of freshwater systems, lose no known native species as a result of human impacts, and protect prescribed water resources (including the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges (EMLR) in the River Murray Protection (Tributaries) Area) from inappropriate development. All of these targets are consistent with the Objects and ORMs and the aims of the Implementation Strategy.

The Murray and Mallee Region Plan acknowledges the River Murray as a popular tourism destination and identifies ‘environment and culture’ as one of four critical themes to the Murray and Mallee Region’s future. The strategies identified in this plan for managing the River Murray are consistent with the Objects and ORMs, and the aims of the Implementation Strategy. They include reducing salinity, supporting the creation of biodiversity corridors, ensuring development protects and preserves the region’s environmental assets, and ensuring development is appropriately located and does not adversely affect environmentally significant areas, scenic landscapes and heritage places.

3.3.3. South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board Regional

NRM Plan 2009-2019

The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (SA MDB NRM Board) Regional NRM Plan 2009-2019 contains the following goals, all of which are consistent with the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003.

1. Landscape-scale management that maintains healthy natural systems;

2. Using and managing natural resources within ecologically sustainable limits;

3. Communities, governments and industries with the capability, commitment and connections to manage natural resources in an integrated way; and

4. Integrated management of threats to minimise risks to natural systems, communities and industry.

There are opportunities to work with the SA MDB NRM Board to further align projects and policies with the Implementation Strategy for the River Murray Act 2003.

In addition, water allocation plans (WAPs) have been developed in draft or adopted for most of the prescribed water resources in the SA MDB region and there are opportunities to align policies and implementation effort between the River Murray Act 2003 and these WAPs.

3.3.4. Final Report of the Planning and Development Review Steering Committee (2008) (the State Planning Review)

In June 2008 the Minister for Urban Development and Planning released the Final Report of the Planning and Development Review Steering Committee. This report reviewed SA’s planning system and made a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations of this report was to reduce referrals under Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008 by 35%. As this Schedule contains several referral mechanisms to the Minister for the River Murray under the River Murray Act 2003 (Part 6, Section 22), DFW has been working on reducing referral numbers towards achieving this target (see further discussion of the State Planning Review under section 5.1.1.).

3.3.5. Water for Good (2009)

Water for Good (WFG) is SA’s plan to ensure the state’s water security to 2050. Implementation of the plan will enable SA to diversify its water supplies to reduce reliance on the River Murray and other rain-dependent water sources.


Actions 53-56, 58 and 86 (listed below) are relevant to the Implementation Strategy and generally align to its priorities, in particular in relation to water quality and environmental flows.

Action 53: Work with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and other Basin jurisdictions to ensure a healthy, working River Murray that will continue to provide critical human water needs for Greater Adelaide and regional South Australia, irrigation requirements and water for the environment;

Action 54: Complete, on time, the elements of the Murray Futures program designed to sustain, support and reinvigorate communities and industries within the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia;

Action 55: Undertake real-time management of environmental issues and potential risks affecting the Lower Lakes;

Action 56: Maintain a positive balance on the Murray-Darling Basin Salinity Register, and continue to implement strategies and actions to ensure the real time management of salinity in the lower reaches of the River Murray so that water quality remains at levels suitable for human consumption;

Action 58: Complete water allocation plans and regulatory review of water allocation plans for key areas in the Mount Lofty Ranges, the Murray-Darling Basin, the South East and Central Adelaide; and

Action 86: Give explicit statutory recognition to an Environmental Water Reserve through the Natural Resources Management Act 2004.

The development of regional supply and demand statements and the focus on water security will also provide opportunities and challenges for River Murray Act 2003 implementation.

3.3.6. Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy (2007-2020)

Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy sets the policy agenda for addressing climate change, which is a critical risk to water resources, both in terms of quantity and supply. The State Strategy links into the national policy agenda, which is based on adapting to climatic variability.

Relevant objectives include:

Objective 2.1 To increase our understanding of risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities;

Objective 2.2 To build resilient and healthy communities;

Objective 2.3 To improve hazard management and minimise risks;

The Implementation Strategy recognises that the key threats facing the River Murray are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. It is important that the Implementation Strategy reflects up-to-date science and knowledge of climate change impacts and aligns with key strategies such as Tackling Climate Change.


4. REVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST PRIORITIES

The Implementation Strategy sets out four priority areas to be pursued by the Minister for the River Murray in seeking to achieve the Objectives and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003. Although each of these is considered independently in this review, the areas are interconnected, and support the achievement of complementary outcomes and values. For example, a reduced environmental flow regime will often lead to a decline in water quality. The priorities under the current Implementation Strategy are:

1. Abate the clearance of vegetation

2. Achieve an environmental flow regime for the River

3. Improve water quality

4. Conserving and protecting heritage values

4.1. Abate the clearance of vegetation

The area and diversity of native vegetation in the River Murray area has declined since European settlement, leading to the extinction of many native species, incursions of exotic species, and degraded landscapes. The desired outcome in the Implementation Strategy is;

Controlled vegetation clearance of endemic native vegetation to encourage the restoration, protection and management of native vegetation and habitats.

Abating the clearance of vegetation is supported by South Australian Strategic Plan (SASP) target T3.1 Lose no species and State NRM Plan target to manage biological threats to natural systems, communities and industry.

South Australian Government initiatives undertaken to abate the clearance of vegetation

Several initiatives have been undertaken to address this priority including:

River Murray Forest Program – a revegetation initiative to re-establish native vegetation on both private and public land;

Removal of Grazing on Crown Lands – a program to remove grazing activity from high value Crown land sites such as the Pike Floodplain to facilitate revegetation of the floodplain;

Inclusion of native vegetation clearance conditions on applications referred under the River Murray Act 2003 pursuant to the Development Act 1993;

Vegetation projects including bioremediation, as part of the State Government’s plans to tackle acidification in the Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. Following trials, large areas have been seeded with cereal crops and grasses to assist bioremediation in the Lower Lakes, with an adaptive management approach adopted to accommodate changes in water levels and climate variability; and

Improved integration and alignment between the River Murray Act 2003 and the Native Vegetation Regulations 2003, arising from amendments in 2009-10 to provide for clearance for fire protection through input into fire management plans applying within the River Murray Protection (Floodplain) Area.


Consultation outcomes

Few respondents had experience or involvement with native vegetation issues under the River Murray Act 2003. However, this priority was still thought to be relevant in light of the key development and environmental issues facing the River Murray.

Some respondents felt that this priority duplicates other regulatory arrangements relating to native vegetation, such as those under the Native Vegetation Act 1991. However, it was noted that the River Murray Act 2003 has been used to protect native vegetation in situations that were not covered by the Native Vegetation Act 1991. In particular, respondents considered the referral of development applications to the Minister for the River Murray under the River Murray Act 2003 had achieved a higher level of protection for native vegetation and helped to facilitate better environmental outcomes in relation to development proposals that impact on native vegetation (see examples under section 5.1.1.). Other respondents noted that there are situations in which limited vegetation clearance might be warranted – for example, where it becomes a hazard to vessel navigation. One respondent raised a concern that the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide sets a policy to use Structure Plans to determine and assess the environmental significance of vegetation and thus removes the need for assessment or referral of individual development applications under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 or Schedule 8 of the Development Act 1993.

Respondents also identified opportunities to further align strategies with the SA MDB NRM Board’s Regional NRM Plan.

4.2. Achieve an environmental flow regime for the River

River regulation and water diversions have reduced river flows and flood frequency, which affects the ability of the River to dilute salt that enters the river and the ecology of wetlands on the floodplain. River regulation and changes to patterns of flow alter vegetation patterns, disrupt ecological processes, alter the ability of native species to reproduce and reduce the diversity of riverine and estuarine habitats.

The desired outcome of this priority is;

Increased and manipulated flows to assist in protecting and enhancing ecological assets. This will include allowing for the wetting and drying of floodplains and wetlands and providing flows to the Coorong and Murray Mouth to maintain estuarine condition.

South Australian Government initiatives to achieve an environmental flow regime for the River

Initiatives undertaken to address this priority include;

Wetland management (including flow controlling structures and wetland management plans);

Adoption of low-flow bypass provisions in the Marne Saunders WAP;

Construction of the Chowilla regulator to provide environmental flows;

On ground works in the Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar site;

Weir pool manipulations;

Purchase of 170 gigalitres of water for the Lower Lakes, to be used for environmental purposes;

The Murray Mouth Sand Pumping Project where dredging was undertaken for more than eight years to keep the Murray Mouth open. Dredging was halted in December 2010 with the return of higher flows to the River Murray system; and

Water recovery under The Living Murray targets – recovery of 500 gigalitres of water for the River Murray (see discussion under section 5.5).



The achievement of an environmental flow regime ranked as a moderate concern among all stakeholders, although few survey respondents had experience with environmental flows issues under the River Murray Act 2003. Comments highlighted the need for a flow regime to meet the needs of the environment, the need to rehabilitate areas affected by low River flows, the capacity to deliver a flow regime for ecological assets under the MDB Agreement, and the interconnectivity of environmental flows with other aspects of environmental health such as salinity and wetland health.

Respondents acknowledged that achievement against this priority has been hampered by ongoing drought conditions. Although a number of programs and projects have been undertaken towards this priority, the extreme drought conditions from 2006 to 2010 resulted in below entitlement flows into SA and thus decreased water levels. In particular, water levels below Lock 1 were affected, including the Lower Lakes. This resulted in a focus on actions to manage the acidification risks in the Lower Lakes and preventing irreversible damage to priority ecological assets. These actions have largely been successful, providing a basis for recovery, following the significant inflows in 2010-2011.

4.3. Improve water quality

Poor water quality not only threatens the health and biodiversity of plants, animals and riverine ecosystems, it also poses risks to public health, agricultural productivity, recreational pursuits and the State’s economy. The desired outcome of this priority is;

Improved water quality through reducing salinity and all types of pollution.

SASP target 3.11(to maintain a positive balance on the Murray-Darling Basin salinity register) and WFG Action 56 (Maintain a positive balance on the Murray-Darling Basin Salinity Register, and continue to implement strategies and actions to ensure the real time management of salinity in the lower reaches of the River Murray so that water quality remains at levels suitable for human consumption) are supported by this priority.

South Australian Government initiatives to improve water quality in the River Murray

Many initiatives have contributed to the achievement of this priority including:

Salt Interception Schemes constructed and operated as joint works under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement 2008 to reduce salt intrusion into the River Murray;

An audit of houseboats by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to ensure they comply with black-water and grey-water codes of practice, and a related educational program. A Code of Practice for Vessel and Facility Management (Marine and Inland Waters) has been introduced by the EPA;

A Water Quality Model for the River Murray has been developed by the EPA and SA Water;

The EPA has concluded the Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Areas Environmental Improvement and Management Program; and

Upgrade of River Vessel Waste Disposal Stations and works completed to enable continued access in operation at water levels significantly below normal pool level.



The improvement of water quality was supported as the most relevant priority to most stakeholders, and most stakeholders’ experience with the River Murray Act 2003 related to a water quality issue. Future challenges raised by stakeholders included the management of salinity implications of environmental watering, the expansion of the priority to include salinisation of the floodplain and soils, expanding upon the priority to recognise that water quality is more than water chemistry, and to strengthen the linkage between water quality and ecological health. Other issues raised by stakeholders included managing wastewater, stormwater runoff and other forms of river pollution.

4.4. Conserving and protecting heritage values

Places of natural and cultural heritage value, such as all Aboriginal sites, historic vistas, significant landscape features, access to important sites, historic shipwrecks, and built heritage, are important to communities. Places of heritage value may have cultural, spiritual, historical and scientific significance and provide a better understanding of Aboriginal and other cultures and the natural environment.

The desired outcome of this priority is;

Heritage values of the River Murray are conserved and protected.

South Australian Government initiatives to conserve and protect heritage values

A variety of initiatives have been undertaken under this priority, including:

Ngarrindjeri and the South Australian Government confirmed the cultural significance of Hindmarsh Island and registered it in accordance with requirements of Section 12 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988;

An Aboriginal Partnerships Project of the SA MDB NRM Board was developed, facilitating indigenous people to work on NRM projects such as management plans and revegetation projects; and

Indigenous representation on MDBA Basin Plan Community committee was achieved.


Only a small number of survey respondents had experience with heritage issues under the River Murray Act 2003. Some respondents felt that the priority was not clear in its intention and should be reworded to reflect the greater river system, landscape quality, geological values and the maintenance of the natural river setting and natural environmental character. Some respondents felt that this priority, as with the first priority, duplicates other regulatory arrangements as these issues are dealt with under other Acts. However, other respondents felt that the River Murray Act 2003 also provides an important role in protecting other heritage and amenity values in terms of protecting built heritage,

Improve water quality: A landholder near Mannum had been allowing rubbish dumping onto private property in the RMPAs. As well as being unsightly, the rubbish consisted of building rubble and debris including old sewer pipes which could contain harmful pathogens. This land was steeply sloped and located near the river such that runoff and leachate from the site would likely enter the River Murray. This would bring the pathogenic material and rubbish into the River Murray, posing a possible health threat to the river fauna and other river users and a possible navigation threat to boat users.

A River Murray Protection Order was issued by River Murray Act authorised officers ordering that the rubbish be removed and the site cleaned up. The rubbish was subsequently removed and the site was rehabilitated and re-landscaped.

Conserving and protecting heritage values: The powers of the River Murray Act have been used to protect an Aboriginal Heritage cave near Overland Corner. Authorised Officers were notified that a centre pivot was being used to irrigate a potato crop on top of a cliff above the cave, which had resulted in water seeping into the cave and damaging Aboriginal paintings on the walls. As cultural heritage is included in the definition of natural resources in the River Murray Act, it was used to change the watering practices above the cave to prevent further seepage into the cave.


significant landscape features, historic shipwrecks, and the natural environment of the River Murray and surrounding environments, for example management of river bank erosion.

The River Murray Act 2003 is notable for its broad definitions of amenity and cultural and natural heritage, which are not included under similar Acts such as the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. While Aboriginal heritage is regulated under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, several respondents noted that the referral mechanism under the River Murray Act 2003 has enabled the identification and protection of a number of additional Aboriginal sites and provides an important safety net in terms of helping to implement appropriate management regimes through development planning processes (see further discussion under section 5.1.1.).


5. REVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST STRATEGIES

The strategies for achieving the priority outcomes in each priority area are set out below. The strategies are grouped under five headings:

1. Providing advice or direction

2. Promoting integration

3. Undertaking or promoting programs

4. Enforcement and compliance

5. Adopting a leadership role in relation to management of the Murray-Darling Basin

The strategies are based on using each of the Minister for the River Murray’s powers and functions under the River Murray Act 2003.

5.1. Providing advice or direction

5.1.1. Phase in the referral process, focusing on priority areas and commencing with the referral of development applications that have the greatest potential to impact on the priority areas.

The process by which the Minister for the River Murray receives, assesses and makes directions on applications and statutory instruments is known as the referral process. Such applications and statutory instruments are assessed to ensure that they take into account, and seek to further, the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003 including an assessment of the potential impacts and cumulative effects of the proposed activity on the River Murray.

Upon commencement of the River Murray Act 2003 in 2003, the referral process for four of the related operational Acts was activated: the Development Act 1993, the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993, the Petroleum Act 2000, and the Mining Act 1993. Referrals commenced in 2007 for relevant activities under the Fisheries Management Act 2007.

The majority of referrals are development applications referred under Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008, which requires the relevant authority to seek the Minister for the River Murray’s input prior to approval being granted. Applications may include proposals for developments such as dwellings, boat ramps, bank modifications and land divisions that fall within the RMPA and have a potential to impact on the River Murray. A general referral assessment policy, and Special and Activity provisions have been developed to provide specific criteria and guidance to the Minister’s delegates in making decisions on referred applications.

It has not been considered necessary to activate referrals under other related operational Acts because the one-stop-shop mechanism that operates under Schedule 8 of the the Development Regulations 2003 effectively requires the Minister for the River Murray to pass on applications to the agencies responsible for those Acts to ensure that any requirements under that legislation are considered. Opportunities to refine and streamline referral mechanisms have been considered on an ongoing basis, particularly in light of the State Planning Review.

The Department for Water, on behalf of the Minister for the River Murray, provides a one-stop-shop service for Planning Authorities. Input is sought from relevant Government agencies during the


preparation of responses to development application referrals that would not ordinarily have the opportunity to comment formally. This also reduces the need for Planning Authorities to deal with several separate agencies. In addition, DFW may coordinate and facilitate meetings between the relevant agencies and the proponent, as well as conduct site visits, which may assist in the assessment of an application. Information gathered through the one-stop-shop process is passed on to the applicant in the form of notes attached to the approval, however, from time to time, the Minister may direct refusal of the application or that certain conditions be attached to ensure that the proposal does not adversely impact the River Murray system.

Initiatives in response to the State Planning Review

Figures for development applications received under the River Murray Act 2003 are set out in Figure 1. Development referrals peaked in March 2008 with an annual figure of 740 referrals and have since declined by 45% to 403 referrals as at June 2011. This has been a natural reduction that can be attributed to impacts of the drought, low water levels below Lock 1, development saturation and economic uncertainty during the Global Financial Crisis.

Figure 1: Schedule 8 referrals to DWLBC/DFW: Items 19, 20 and 21, January 2004 to June 2011

Further reductions in referrals have been targeted through the 2008 State Planning Review. DFW has identified opportunities to streamline and reduce referrals under the River Murray Act 2003 in consultation with relevant development and planning agencies. This has mandated referral reductions through two primary reform processes that are subject to final approvals and regulatory frameworks being put in place. These initiatives are to:

Abate the clearance of native vegetation: In 2009 the Minister for the River Murray was referred a proposed application for the construction of an elevated dwelling within close proximity of six native Black Box trees. The Minister required the applicant to seek the advice of an arborist to consider the potential impact on native vegetation and options to minimise such impacts. The assessment recommended the removal of one tree that was in poor health and structural condition. It also proposed siting the dwelling far enough away from the other five trees so that potential negative impacts were minimised. The applicant amended the development plans to reflect the recommendations and consulted with the Native Vegetation Council to offset the removal of the single tree. The Minister’s involvement in the development assessment process helped to ensure the long-term retention of the trees; and facilitated a better environmental outcome than that originally proposed.

Improve water quality: The threat of development refusal under the River Murray Act helped to ensure that the Tailings Storage Facility of the Terramin Mine at Strathalbyn was lined to prevent sulfidic leachate from entering groundwater, the Burnside Creek and the Angas River. The case resulted in South Australia’s first Guideline for Tailings and Tailings Storage Facilities and helped to improve mining and licensing practices.


1. Remove referral triggers through a review of the Schedule 8 criteria relating to the River Murray Act 2003 under the Development Regulations 2008; and

2. Explore opportunities to exempt specific areas and activities from the requirement to refer development applications to the Minister for the River Murray.


Respondents identified that direction and the attachment of conditions and notes to development approvals have helped to raise awareness and minimise potential adverse impacts relating to the clearance of native vegetation or habitat, water quality or pollution, water flows, spread of pests and the amenity of an area. Conditions and notes also help to raise awareness of requirements and obligations under other Acts such as the Crown Land Management Act 2009 and water licensing requirements under the

Natural Resources Management Act 2004. This is supported by the finding of random audits conducted during 2009-2010 that show that there is 70% voluntary compliance to the referral conditions established for landowners in the River Murray region under the River Murray Act 2003.

Respondents noted that the wide scope of the River Murray Act 2003 has helped to avoid potentially harmful development impacts that would not be regulated under other Acts, and has led to policy outcomes such as managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests, accounting for the filling and evaporative losses from artificial water bodies and controlling activities that may damage aboriginal and other heritage sites.

The majority of stakeholders found that the referral of development applications and the operation of the one-stop-shop have added value to and created efficient development planning processes. The individual assessment and provision of advice on development applications was considered by respondents to be a valuable mechanism of the River Murray Act 2003 as it addresses issues that may not be regulated under other Acts. Future opportunities for greater streamlining of the referral process and to focus on priority development issues in line with current State Planning Review initiatives were supported by respondents. The provision of new policies and guidelines under the River Murray Act 2003 or through the Better Development Plan library format which councils insert in their Development Plans were also proposed. Such policies should provide guidance on how certain types of development may be assessed and what constitutes complying development, creating greater certainty and efficiency for applicants, and more consistent and efficient planning processes (see also discussion under section 5.1.3).

Achieve an environmental flow regime for the River:

Prior to 2005, forestry in the Fleurieu Peninsula was expanding beyond the sustainable limits of the water resources in the area. As these water resources are located within the RMPA, powers of direction under the River Murray Act were used to refuse two applications for forestry developments based on hydrological evidence that forest trees take surface and groundwater. This led to the development of a new state wide policy framework ‘Managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests.’ Powers of the River Murray Act were used to ensure that water use was accounted for in relation to forestry practices and contributed to the development of a sustainable policy framework to better regulate these resources.

Conserving and protecting heritage values:

During 2010, the Goolwa Wharf was targeted for major upgrades. The River Murray Act referral process was used to modify proposals to ensure that the upgrades were undertaken so as to be consistent with the heritage features of the original wharf.

The referral process has also helped to prevent inadvertent damage to aboriginal heritage values through applicants being made aware of the presence of artefacts and sacred sites in the vicinity of their proposed development. Applicants have also been made aware of relevant obligations to protect these sites and in some cases, management plans have been put in place for preservation of these sites.


Opportunities for improvement also included the provision of more detailed input (e.g. technical guidance) to referral applications and the provision of scientific rationale for decisions. This would assist planning authorities to make informed and defendable decisions in light of clear evidence of what will minimise harm to the River. Respondents also supported the provision of new training opportunities and improved maps of relevant protection zones under different legislation.

5.1.2. Support the development and implementation of policies by state and local government that align and seek to further the objects of the River Murray Act 2003 and; by assisting councils and government agencies to amend their plans and policies to take into account the Objects and ORMs when administering a related operational Act.

The referral process has primarily supported this strategy through input given by the Minister for the River Murray to the statutory instruments of councils and other government agencies.

Assessments in relation to statutory instruments are undertaken to ensure they take into account the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003 and are consistent with the priorities of the Implementation Strategy. This has resulted in the amendment of some plans and policies and has helped to ensure consistency in the application of principles relating to the River Murray. Some examples of statutory instruments that have been developed or amended to align with River Murray Act 2003 Objects and ORMs include:

Development Plan Amendments to Council Development Plans within the RMPA;

The Regional NRM Plan developed by the SA MDB NRM Board;

The River Murray Risk Assessment, Risk Assessment Implementation Project and Code of Practice for Vessel and Facility Management (Marine and Inland Waters) developed by the EPA;

Regional Strategic Plans developed by the South Australian Tourism Commission;

The review of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2003 and development of policies in relation to native vegetation clearance for fire protection undertaken by the Native Vegetation Council (see section 4.1.);

The Murray-Mallee Regional Planning Strategy developed collaboratively by state agencies, relevant councils, the SA MDB NRM Board and other stakeholders;

The Development Plan Amendment for Commercial Forestry developed by the Development Policy Advisory Committee (see further discussion under section 5.2.2.); and

The draft Water Allocation Plan for the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area, developed by the SA MDB NRM Board.


Input received through the consultation process has indicated that more specific policies and goals for achieving the Objects and ORMs of River Murray Act 2003 and the outcomes of the Implementation Strategy would be useful for agencies seeking to incorporate them into their plans and policies. This could include criteria relating to what constitutes a healthy River Murray and indicators to gauge the achievement of the Objects, ORMs and priorities and strategies.


5.1.3. Support referring bodies including local government by: 5.1.3.1. Increasing awareness by providing education and written guidelines where required; 5.1.3.2. Use gazetted exemptions to refine the referral process; 5.1.3.3. Develop policies to address each aspect of the River, and each type of referral the Minister

may receive; 5.1.3.4. Policies will be publicly accessible from councils’ offices and Department for Water offices and

website; 5.1.3.5. To ensure the support of the community the Minister will conduct appropriate consultation on

policies that are not based on existing statutory or widely-consulted and accepted policies and plans.

5.1.3.1. Increasing awareness by providing education and written guidelines where required:

A number of fact sheets and guidelines have been developed to assist referring bodies by providing information and guidance on assessing referrals and complying with the River Murray Act 2003 (discussed under section 5.1.3.3).

Education and information sharing is conducted on an ongoing basis between DFW and local government through planning meetings and consultation on policies developed under the River Murray Act 2003.

DFW, on behalf of the Minister for the River Murray, also provides a service to local government and the broader community by providing information or advice on matters relating to the protection of the River Murray system and the requirement for approvals for activities under various Acts. This may include advice on the type and level of information that needs to be included in a development application and references to relevant information or officers who may be able to provide more specific and technical advice.


Respondents found DFW staff accessible and commended their expertise in helping to achieve positive outcomes for relevant local and state government agencies and the wider community. Respondents noted that access to information has sometimes been limited by a lack of resources. There was concern about the reduction in compliance staff, as it was considered that they played a vital role, particularly during the drought in notifying councils of incidents and working with others to negotiate suitable outcomes. Officers were also instrumental in running educational and awareness raising campaigns on specific issues such as illegal developments, riverbank collapse, sand dumping and alleged breaches of water restrictions, where liaison with councils and relevant agencies helped to ensure that residents were informed of their responsibilities and how to minimise harm to themselves and the River.

In addition to education and written guidelines, other primary sources of information that respondents have been exposed to were the River Murray Act 2003 content of Departmental websites, and participation in networking and training events. The majority of respondents found this information useful but suggested improving content on the current website to include more information on the resources and guidelines available for planners, and details of relevant contact persons and their expertise. DFW is currently working on progressing these suggestions.

5.1.3.2. Use gazetted exemptions to refine the referral process:

The following exemptions have been created under the River Murray Act 2003:

1. Domestic outbuildings and farm buildings exemption; and


2. Temporary drought relief exemption for the extension or relocation of pumping infrastructure.

The domestic outbuildings and farm buildings exemption came into operation on 19 May 2005 and exempts the referral of development applications for domestic outbuildings that are compliant with gazetted criteria. This exemption has helped to streamline and reduce red tape in the referral process by removing the requirement to refer where a development complies with these criteria. The temporary drought relief exemption came into operation on 21 December 2006 and was revoked on 3 February 2011. The exemption was also informally extended to provide for temporary installation of riverbank stabilisation measures. These measures were put in place to fast track proposal assessments and provide financial relief for irrigators adversely affected by drought.


Many respondents were supportive of DFW’s proposed initiatives in response to the State Planning Review to exempt specific low-risk development activities from referral. The Department will reconsider respondents’ proposals for additional exemptions when outcomes of these initiatives are in place to determine if additional exemptions may be required.

A large proportion of respondents felt that the exemption for domestic outbuildings and farm buildings contains excessive criteria and that the conditions for the exemption in terms of size, appearance, and siting are too onerous. In particular, size specifications are seen to be too small in light of the needs of many rural properties. This has led to the continued referral of development applications where the proposal falls outside these specified criteria which has sometimes undermined the effectiveness of the scheme as standard assessments are required and referral fees are charged. DFW will consider options for reviewing the exemption as a future initiative.

Agencies that undertook works under the drought relief exemption found that it helped to allow necessary works to proceed quickly.

5.1.3.3. Develop policies to address each aspect of the River, and each type of referral the Minister may

receive

A number of policies, fact sheets and guidelines have been developed to assist in the implementation of the River Murray Act 2003. Figure 2 shows the strategic relationships between existing policies.

Figure 2: River Murray Referral Assessment Framework


The River Murray Referral Assessment Policy outlines how referred statutory instruments and authorisations will be assessed by DFW. The Neutral and Beneficial Guidelines are guidelines to ensure development is neutral or beneficial to the River and a supporting document to the River Murray Referral Assessment Policy. The Special and Activity provisions build on the Neutral and Beneficial Guidelines by providing detailed information pertinent to specific activities or features. Other fact sheets provide general information and guidance relating to the powers and functions of the River Murray Act 2003.

In 2004-05, considerable effort was put into developing draft policies addressing various aspects of River health however the recent drought necessitated an adjustment in priorities of the River Murray Act 2003 program to a more on-ground focus. DFW will use the outcomes of this review to review future policy needs and will consider the views of respondents regarding relevant policy priorities and gaps.


Respondents to the consultation process indicated that they used information developed under the River Murray Act 2003 to varying degrees. Figure 3 shows the level of use by respondents of the fact sheets, policies and guidelines developed under the River Murray Act 2003. The consultation process found that the most commonly used and useful written guidelines were the:

Fact sheet: Overview of the River Murray Act 2003;

River Murray Referral Assessment Policy: Overview and General Provisions;

Fact sheet: General duty of care;

Fact sheet: Referrals under the River Murray Act 2003.

The Special and Activity provisions and other guidelines were not used as frequently as the overview and general documents. This reflects their purpose with many of these primarily designed for internal use by the Minister’s delegates when assessing referred statutory instruments and applications. While the use of these guidelines was limited, when used in conjunction with the River Murray Referral Assessment Policy, they have helped to provide planners and applicants with guidance to foresee and address potential environmental impacts in development proposals.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of respondents who used policies

Figure 3: Use of Fact Sheets, policies and guidelines developed under the River Murray Act 2003


Several respondents felt that it would be desirable to have more policies, fact sheets or guidelines under the River Murray Act 2003. Some considered that uncertainty in relation to development standards has led to inconsistency and a lack of coordination in decision-making, and has promoted illegal development that has caused undesirable consequences for the River. As a means to address this, guidance was requested in the form of minimum development standards or standard conditions for specific types of developments.

It was also stated that more education resources to raise awareness on how certain developments can be detrimental to the riverine environment would be beneficial. An improved common understanding between agencies and by the community of the values that need to be protected, what constitutes a healthy sustainable River, and how the development assessment process can be used to achieve this were also sought by respondents.

Some areas where respondents felt more guidance is needed on best practice and complying with requirements of the River Murray Act 2003 are:

Development of Minor Structures: Jetties, moorings, landings, pontoons, retaining walls, guidance on adapting to variable water levels and pool level data;

Managing Vessel Impacts: Houseboats, recreational and boating activities;

Managing Water Quality Issues: Grey water units, effluent disposal, stormwater disposal, disposal of deceased stock; and

Land and Riverbank Management: Excavation, cut and fill, protection and maintenance of levy banks, riverbank modification, land use and appropriate siting of developments, and land divisions.

5.1.3.4. Policies will be publicly available from council’s offices and Departmental offices and website

The River Murray Act 2003’s policies, fact sheets and guidelines are currently available on the WFG website (http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au) and were available on the former Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) website. The Department is currently working to deliver improved website content for the River Murray Act 2003 program, and to make documents accessible from relevant links and search engines.

The policies are available in hard copy format from DFW offices upon request and can be accessed at council offices upon request via the internet.


Most respondents stated that the website is a useful tool to promote the River Murray Act 2003’s policies, fact sheets and guidelines and provides information regarding how these resources can be used by relevant agencies and the community. Respondents stated that they could be assisted by promotion of the website and improved internet access to these resources.

5.1.3.5. To ensure the support of the community the Minister will conduct appropriate consultation on

policies that are not based on existing statutory or widely-consulted and accepted policies and plans.

Consultation with councils and relevant agencies occurred during the development of existing policies, guidelines and fact sheets.

The Neutral and Beneficial Effects pilot program is an example of such consultation which took place during a six-month trial of the guidelines. This included an anonymous survey of fifty external stakeholders and an internal test of the guidelines using real life development proposals. Responses were

http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/


generally positive and the guidelines were found to provide a structured basis on which to assess referred applications and formulate conditions for approval. The pilot program resulted in the Neutral and Beneficial Effects Guidelines being released for use by planners. As with the development of the Neutral and Beneficial Effects pilot program, in the review and development of new policies under the River Murray Act 2003, adequate consultation and engagement will be undertaken to ensure that policies are useful, workable and meet user needs.

5.2. Promoting integration

5.2.1. Develop networks within government, external agencies, local government, other persons or

authorities including Aboriginal communities, to support coordination and integration of programs

and policies to enhance opportunities for joint or complementary programs.

Interagency networks are a crucial factor in the successful functioning of the River Murray Act 2003 and have been instrumental in achieving outcomes through providing opportunities to deliver joint and complimentary programs and policies. Discussion in relation to the coordination and implementation of integrated policies is discussed under sections 5.1.2 and 5.3.1.

Joint and complementary programs drawing on interagency networks contributed to the SA Government’s drought response. Some examples of coordination and integration of programs are:

The Drought Initiative Emergency Moorings program administered by DFW and the Emergency Drought Dredging program administered by the EPA. These programs established a coordinated process whereby the assessment process for development applications involving the extension and/or relocation of pumping infrastructure were fast tracked and fees were waived. This assisted communities and helped to facilitate continued access to River Murray water during the drought.

The EPA sand dumping campaign initiated by the EPA and actively supported by DFW was a coordinated program to respond to increased instances of sand dumping by landholders on the riverbank during the drought. Increasing instances of sand dumping occurred as residents attempted to shore up riverbanks, cover the smell of acid-sulfate soils and create artificial beaches as many metres of river bed became exposed due to low water levels. This practice had the potential to cause harm to the River as some sand was sourced from Branched Broomrape contaminated areas, and could contaminate water when water levels rose and mobilised the sand. This activity was a breach of the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003.

River Murray Act 2003 compliance officers acted as a conduit between local councils and state government agencies, organising meetings to highlight and resolve drought related issues associated with emergency dredging, extension of boat ramps, jetties and moorings, houseboat relocation, illegal taking of water, and riverbank slumping. This helped to ensure that residents were aware of both their obligations, and best practice techniques to respond to challenges associated with drought.

Coordination by DFW of the response to the threats at the Lower Lakes was an enormous coordination challenge between agencies including DFW, EPA, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia (PIRSA), the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) and local councils.

The SA MDB NRM Board, DFW and DENR are involved in the delivery of environmental flows and water to the SA River Murray. Coordination and integration between the staff and agencies, as well as the community has worked effectively to date. The wetland program has been consulted on and culminated in the development of bids for environmental water, management and delivery of


environmental water, prioritising wetland sites for best use of available water and monitoring of ecological outcomes.


Respondents felt that positive outcomes had been achieved through interagency coordination and integration of programs. The River Murray Act 2003 is seen to be a very strong tool that can be used to improve networks and support coordination and integration between regulatory frameworks and agencies. There were some concerns however arising from ambiguity and a lack of clarity in relation to the roles and responsibilities of agencies caused by an overlap of powers and functions under the River Murray Act 2003 and other Acts.

In the past a quarterly meeting was held between relevant agencies and councils to discuss and coordinate development and planning issues. Respondents to the survey have suggested that this was a worthwhile networking and collaborative forum and supported the recommencement of these sessions.

\

5.2.2. Integrate the administration of legislation through input into statutory instruments under the

related operational Acts.

The integration of administration of legislation through input to statutory instruments is primarily coordinated through the referral and one-stop-shop service under the River Murray Act 2003. Further discussion in relation to input to statutory instruments is discussed under section 5.1.2 regarding the role of the River Murray Act 2003 in assisting councils and government agencies to amend their plans and policies.

Some primary examples of where the River Murray Act 2003 has achieved integration of the administration of legislation through input to statutory instruments are:

The Development Plan Amendment for Forestry under the Development Act 1993 was reviewed by the Minister for the River Murray. This review identified that the amendment was not consistent with a newly developed state-wide forestry policy regarding plantation forestry within the vicinity of watercourses. As a result, major amendments were made to the Development Plan Amendment to ensure state-wide policy consistency and protection of River Murray values.

The River Murray Act 2003 amended the Environment Protection Act 1993 so that the State of the Environment report includes a specific assessment of the State of the River Murray, especially taking into account the ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003. The 2003 and 2008 State of the Environment reports include specific River Murray sections and assessments against each of the ORMs. This assessment can help to gauge the effectiveness of the ORMs in driving programs to protect and restore the River Murray. The triennial review under the River Murray Act 2003 also requires an assessment of the state of the River Murray. As an outcome of this review, future consideration should be given to alignment of the River Murray Act 2003 with the Environment Protection Act 1993 to avoid duplication and to streamline the process.

In 2008, the EPA Board endorsed that the River Murray Water Protection Area proclaimed under the Environment Protection Act 1993 be consistent with the River Murray Protection (Floodplain) Area proclaimed under the River Murray Act 2003. These changes were endorsed by the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for the River Murray. This has resulted in one common boundary for councils and the community, including the area of the Lower Lakes, and has integrated regulatory boundaries for the application of the Acts.


5.3. Undertaking or promoting programs

(a) Programs to protect, maintain or improve the River

5.3.1. Promote the integration and implementation of appropriate policies developed by other agencies by applying those policies to matters referred to the Minister. For example the State Natural Resources Management Plan 2006, Catchment Water Management Plans, the regional Natural Resources Management Plan, the River Murray Water Allocation Plan, relevant Environment Protection Policies (for instance , for Water Quality) and some Local Action Plans.

The Minister for the River Murray, through his delegates, considers and applies relevant legislation and related policies developed by other agencies to matters referred to the Minister. The one-stop-shop referral service also facilitates input to relevant policies as agencies provide input relating to their specific legislation and policies which are included in statutory responses to planning authorisations to the planning authority and applicant. DFW has made a significant effort to develop networks and expand the scope of the one-stop-shop services so that it includes a comprehensive range of policy and legislative requirements from relevant agencies which are included in detailed responses.

A revision of the Implementation Strategy may need to be considered to ensure continued alignment with more recent plans and strategies, as discussed in Section 3.

5.3.2. Use management agreements under the River Murray Act 2003 where appropriate to encourage,

facilitate or achieve outcomes.

Management agreements are agreements formulated under Section 18 of the River Murray Act 2003 between the Minister for the River Murray and owners of land for the purposes of the conservation or management of water, the preservation conservation, management enhancement or re-establishment of any aspect of the natural resources of the River Murray, or any other matter associated with furthering the objects of the River Murray Act 2003 or ORMs. No management agreements have been utilised under the River Murray Act 2003 to date. Draft River Murray Act 2003 management agreements were prepared between the Angas Bremer Irrigators Revegetation Association Incorporated and water license holders, however the agreements were not activated due to issues related to land ownership.

While the potential scope for management agreements is very wide, they have not been used as a primary regulatory mechanism under the River Murray Act 2003 for a number of reasons:

The referral and one-stop-shop process allows the Minister for the River Murray to provide input to management agreements developed by other agencies so that they take into account and seek to further the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003. For example, input has been given to land management agreements developed by councils, heritage agreements developed by DENR, and management agreements or plans prepared under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 or Environment Protection Act 1993.

The use of management agreements under the River Murray Act 2003 has the potential to duplicate this mechanism under other related operational Acts. The use of management agreements under other Acts has meant that there has not been a need to enter management agreements under the River Murray Act 2003.


Respondents indicated the use of management agreements under other Acts had achieved positive outcomes in relevant cases and input from the Minister for the River Murray had helped to ensure that the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003 were taken into account. The general consensus was


that the need and case for using management plans under the River Murray Act 2003 should be investigated and justified to reduce the risk of duplicating the powers and functions of other management mechanisms.

(b) Programs to monitor and collect data on the state of the River and other relevant information, and assessing and applying other information obtained from other programs or sources

5.3.3 Provide an annual report on the implementation of the River Murray Act 2003, and undertake a general review every three years. The review will include an assessment of the state of the River, and in that way will assist in determining the extent to which the priorities pursued in the Implementation strategy have had an impact on river health;

DFW (and DWLBC previously) has delivered an annual report on the implementation of the River Murray Act 2003 since its inception in 2003, in line with requirements set out in Section 10 of the River Murray Act 2003. The annual report is prepared for the year ending 30 June each year, to be completed by 30 September of that year.

A triennial review was delivered in the 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 annual reports. These reports complied with the requirements in Section 11 of the River Murray Act 2003 and included an assessment of the state of the River. A triennial review is currently being undertaken and is due for completion with the 2010-2011 annual report.


Respondents highlighted that the annual report process provides an opportunity to plan annual targets for the achievement of the priorities and strategies of the Implementation Strategy. Some respondents expressed concern about the reporting burden associated with the River Murray Act 2003 and felt that there was a risk of duplication with a number of other reporting mechanisms.

5.3.4 Develop formal networks and agreements with key State agencies including the regional South

Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, local and Australian Government agencies and other bodies external to Government, to ensure a high level of cooperation in data-collection and sharing.

In 2008, DFW was designated the lead agency within the South Australian Government on providing advice on the Water Act 2007. As part of this role, DFW provides advice on Murray-Darling Basin planning and management associated with referral of powers under the legislation. DFW also has the lead role under the Water Act 2007 to oversee the coordinated Water Information Program for South Australia. This entailed the establishment of a Water Information Program Board to drive the strategic direction of the Water Information Program, make decisions about the State’s investment in Water Information, coordinate the delivery of strategic project outcomes and benefits, and resolve any issues between projects. The Water Information Program Board consists of senior executives from DFW, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Department of Treasury and Finance, DTEI, DENR, SA Water and the Bureau of Meteorology.

DFW manages monitoring sites along the River Murray on behalf of the MDBA as part of its River Murray Water Quality Monitoring Program and Biological Monitoring Program. Data is received from SA MDB NRM Board surface water monitoring sites and automatic weather stations. DFW shares data from automatic weather stations with the Bureau of Meteorology on behalf of the SA MDB NRM Board as required by the Water Act 2007. Data collected and shared with these agencies includes information on


water levels, flow volumes, salinity levels and other water quality parameters, rainfall and other meteorological data.

DFW science and monitoring data is made available to other agencies and the community on the Water Connect Website (www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au). This provides data such as information from water monitoring sites in relevant regions, riverbank collapse and submerged infrastructure hazard sites and other technical publications.

Informal data-sharing is also facilitated by DFW and other agencies from time to time upon request.


Respondents indicated that there was a satisfactory level of data-collection and sharing between agencies. Improvements in information sharing are achievable as multiple agencies hold different forms of water data and there are opportunities to avoid unnecessary overlap and expenditure. Some specific suggestions for improvement are:

Develop a consolidated list of data availability in a database;

Develop and make available a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool for councils to import prescribed water boundaries into their policy documents and GIS systems;

Improve quality and consistency of maps such as the RMPA and council development plan mapping;

Review the definitions and mapping of the 1956 flood plain; and

Develop an integrated referral and compliance information database for use by relevant agencies.

5.4. Enforcement and compliance

5.4.1 Develop an Enforcement Policy to guide and focus enforcement efforts. The policy will cover issues such as when related operational Acts should be used, and when direct provisions of the River Murray Act 2003 should be used.

The River Murray Act 2003 Compliance and Enforcement Guidelines were written during 2004-05. The guidelines provide guidance to authorised officers as to when and how compliance and enforcement tools under the River Murray Act 2003 should be used. The main compliance tools under the River Murray Act 2003 are protection and reparation orders, reparation authorisations and restraining orders. The duty of care is also an important provision placing a general obligation on persons to take reasonable precautions to ensure that their actions or activities do not cause harm to the River. A breach of this duty can activate enforcement provisions to protect or repair any harm caused. Negotiation is also an informal tool and preferred first step to secure compliance and officers aim to secure positive working relationships with relevant agencies and persons to achieve negotiated outcomes.

The guidelines do not specify when related operational Acts should be used in relation to when direct provisions of the River Murray Act 2003 should be used. Authorised officers under the River Murray Act 2003 may receive training in relation to the use of compliance powers under other Acts depending on the relevant authorisations they need to undertake their role. In exercising these powers an officer may choose to report specific issues to a relevant authority, take coordinated interagency action or respond directly through authorisation under a relevant Act.


Respondents were supportive of greater clarification and guidance being provided in relation to the hierarchy of powers and division of responsibilities between different Acts and agencies administering compliance and enforcement powers under different legislation.

http://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au/


The River Murray Act 2003 Compliance and Enforcement Guidelines are in the process of being reviewed by DFW to ensure they are current and provide relevant information and guidance to authorised officers. This review may be used to investigate opportunities to provide guidelines relating to when related operational Acts should be used, and when direct provisions of the River Murray Act 2003 should be used.

5.4.2 Support the enforcement of relevant provisions of related operational Acts, including licence conditions, by responsible agencies, through provision of training and awareness about the River Murray Act 2003 and other agencies’ statutory obligations under the River Murray Act 2003.

Compliance officers authorised under the River Murray Act 2003 are also authorised and administer powers under other Acts including the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, the Environment Protection Act 1993 and the Native Vegetation Act 1991. This has enabled officers to take action under these Acts where necessary or report specific issues to relevant officers and/or agencies administering other related Acts. Other agencies such as local councils, PIRSA, the EPA and the SA MDB NRM Board also exercise compliance and enforcement powers to help to protect the River Murray and its natural resources under related relevant legislation.

Some key examples of DFW officers supporting the enforcement of relevant provisions of related operational Acts are discussed under section 5.2.1 in relation to responding to drought related issues such as sand dumping, emergency dredging, extension of boat ramps, jetties and moorings, houseboat relocation, illegal taking of water and riverbank slumping. Many of these issues gave rise to potential breaches of related operational Acts or policies such as the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 and Development Act 1993 as well as the River Murray Act 2003. DFW compliance officers and officers of other agencies worked together to administer compliance powers and achieve integrated outcomes.

Authorised officers undertake a specific training course regarding the operation and enforcement of the River Murray Act 2003 upon commencement of their employment. A five-day course is also held every year for authorised officers under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 which includes instruction on the enforcement of provisions of related Acts, including the River Murray Act 2003. The course is facilitated by the University of South Australia in conjunction with DFW and other agencies.

5.4.3 Appoint appropriate authorised officers under the River Murray Act 2003

Eight DFW officers are currently appointed as authorised officers under the River Murray Act 2003 on delegated authority from the Minister for the River Murray (Section 13 provides of the appointment of authorised officers). In 2009-2010 there were twelve officers appointed to help to respond to the challenges of the drought. The reduction has reflected the improvement in the water resource and the cessation of drought funding.

When DWLBC changed to DFW, authorised officers under other related Acts administered by the DENR have remained within DFW through an interagency memorandum of understanding. This has helped to ensure that the administration of compliance powers by these agencies is undertaken collaboratively.


Respondents noted that reduced resourcing has the potential to impact strongly on the effectiveness of the compliance effort and an enhanced patrol ability specifically focussed on river issues should be supported for compliance purposes.


The overlap between powers of authorised officers under different Acts has caused some uncertainty as to which legislation and agency is best placed to act in relevant cases and this has led to duplication of responses in some cases. Clarification of roles and responsibilities may be supported through greater promotion of the River Murray Act 2003 Compliance and Enforcement Guidelines and the development of similar provisions in relation to enforcement powers under other Acts. Training and networking sessions would also provide support.

Challenges in relation to development planning processes and responding to illegal developments were also noted by respondents. It was highlighted that due to red tape faced in relation to gaining approval for certain minor structures, some applicants had chosen to pursue development without the necessary development approvals. While some of these developments have been regulated through compliance patrols, this has led to undesirable outcomes by encouraging a culture and practice of ‘build first, seek approval later’ where retrospective approval can be sought once a development is in place. This practice has the potential to undermine the referral and compliance functions of the River Murray Act 2003 and other legislation, and highlights the need to make application processes more accessible and user-friendly. Some initiatives discussed under previous strategies in relation to streamlining referral processes and providing more policy guidance to planners and applicants will support the resolution of these issues.

5.5. Adopting a leadership role in relation to management of the Murray-Darling Basin

5.5.1. Continue to champion the effective implementation of the ‘first step’ agreement to allocate $500 million to return 500 gigalitres for environmental flows to the River Murray.

The Living Murray program was established in 2002 in response to evidence showing the declining health of the River Murray system and is a partnership of the Australian, New South Wales, Victorian, Australian Capital Territory and South Australian governments.

As part of the Living Murray first step decision, a water recovery program was implemented between Commonwealth and state governments that aimed to return 500 gigalitres of water to the River to achieve environmental outcomes at the six River Murray ‘icon sites’ by June 2009, with an additional 1500 gigalitres by 2018.

As of 27 May 2011 an estimated total of 486 gigalitres was recovered under The Living Murray ‘first step’ measures. SA finalised its listing in 2009-2010 and was the first jurisdiction to secure its target of 35 gigalitres. It has since exceeded its indicative share by providing an estimated 41.5 gigalitres of environmental flows for the River Murray. This total volume has been acquired through purchases from willing sellers in SA and government owned licences.

Recovered water was used to achieve ecological results at SA River Murray Icon sites including the Chowilla Floodplain and Lindsay-Wallpolla Islands site, CLLMM site, and the River Murray Channel during the drought based on the relevant management plan for the site. In particular environmental flows were used for pumping into wetlands to provide vital flows to improve vegetation condition and provide a drought refuge for threatened species. Flows were also provided for the Lower Lakes to respond to water quality challenges associated with salinity and acid-sulfate soils.

5.5.2. Continue to promote the need for an extra 1500 gigalitres of flow in the River.

The target of achieving additional flows of up to 1500 gigalitres for the River is the next stage of the Living Murray program targeted for achievement by 2018. The Commonwealth and Basin states are on track to achieve this target with sources of environmental water being achieved through the Living Murray and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Funds through the Save the River Murray Fund are also used to fund water saving and infrastructure works and measures.


Since 2009 the MDBA has been preparing a Basin Plan for the integrated and sustainable management of surface water and groundwater resources in the MDB. This Plan represents a significant opportunity to address over-allocation across the Basin and achieve enhanced environmental and water security outcomes. It will set SDLs for surface water and groundwater within the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray Futures program will also deliver additional environmental water through buy back, management and infrastructure projects.


6. EMERGING ISSUES

Since 2006 there have been significant environmental challenges and policy developments that have affected the administration of the River Murray Act 2003 and provided drivers for its future implementation. Emerging issues facing the River Murray and its surrounds in South Australia were identified during this review.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan

One of the major policy developments that will take place over the next year will be the development of the Basin Plan and its associated Environmental Watering, and Salinity and Water Quality Plans. A key component of the Basin Plan will be SDLs, which will have a significant impact on determining the future long term health of the River Murray system and the quality and quantity of water that flows into South Australia. Several stakeholders identified the Basin Plan as a crucial vehicle to progress the Objects and ORMs of the River Murray Act 2003, recognising that the Basin Plan is a key document that will drive Basin reform and sustainable use of water resources in the coming years, both in terms of environmental and socio-economic development issues.

The River Murray Water Allocation Plan

Another key policy document affecting the River Murray in South Australia is the River Murray WAP. The River Murray WAP is currently being reviewed and will need to align with the Basin Plan and the SDL requirements. This will be a real opportunity to showcase best practice water resource management and benefit from the vast improvement in knowledge and management capability of the River Murray system in recent times. The completion of new WAPs for other key parts of the South Australian MDB (such as the EMLR) will also be a major opportunity to align and streamline water resource management.

Reduced long-term water availability

Respondents identified that the important question will be how the South Australian MDB area responds to a future with potentially less water for consumptive use, both in terms of potential reductions in water availability as a result of climate change and also as a result of the SDLs under the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan may act as a trigger for structural changes in land use in the region, and it is here that the River Murray Act 2003 and its integrated approach to assessing development activities and plans can ensure that these changes deliver sustainable outcomes for the River Murray system.

The recent drought highlighted the need to consider variable water levels, in particular below Lock 1 and the challenges these created in terms of activities on the floodplain, water quality, erosion, water access, infrastructure management and recreation.

Compliance and enforcement

Several respondents stated that effective enforcement of the duty of care principle requires government agencies to have clear roles and responsibilities. Several stakeholders indicated that their roles and responsibilities under the River Murray Act 2003 were unclear at times and that additional training and collaboration opportunities would assist in clarifying this issue. Programs to maintain river health values often involve significant cooperation across government and prioritisation of requirements. Through the drought response, agencies have shown a great capacity to work together, leading to significant positive outcomes. Processes which maintain or facilitate this integration are vital for on-going programs.

The current review has identified that for effective implementation, the compliance effort and duty of care principle must be applied at a number of levels to achieve appropriate outcomes. Site by site


regulation is critical, as is ensuring that appropriate conditions are placed on activities and relevant planning instruments. The one-stop-shop service ensures that this takes place in an effective and efficient manner. However, the consideration of cumulative effects of multiple developments and activities remains a challenge.


Figure 4 shows the key future development and environmental issues raised by respondents. This input provides guidance to identifying the key threats to sustainable use and management of the River Murray in the future. The current Implementation Strategy aligns the key threats identified at the time it was written to its four key priorities. The current review provided an opportunity to assess these priorities to ensure that they are reflective of current and projected future threats, and that they are achievable through the powers and functions of the River Murray Act 2003.

Development issues and practices were highlighted as the most highly ranked issue of concern for respondents regarding the future health of the River Murray. This includes concerns regarding illegal development, replacement dwellings, jetties and moorings, riverfront development, amenity values and irrigation and farming practices.

Water quality issues, including managing salinity, wastewater, stormwater runoff and other forms of river pollution, ranked as the second highest concern.

Sustainability, variable climate and drought legacy issues were also raised as major threats and respondents cited concerns relating to response to future drought and flood events, and increasingly variable climate conditions. These threats involve potential flow on effects to communities and regional economies, and highlight the need for structural adjustment to respond to these current and future challenges, and for accurate data to inform these changes.

Erosion and river bank stability ranked as a high concern as a result of variable river levels, damage to levy banks, and recreational vehicle and vessel impacts. River bank collapse poses a large risk to public health and safety, as well as to river health.

Although several respondents identified that the current priorities of the Implementation Strategy were not their primary concern, any revision of the priorities of the Implementation Strategy should not only reflect key threats and emerging issues facing the river, but also align with the powers and functions of the River Murray Act 2003 and particularly, its role in regulating issues that are not regulated by other legislation.

19

12

10

42

24

7

15

11

6

6

5

135 2

Sustainability, variable climate and drought legacyStructural Adjustment

Water Reform

Development Issues and Practices

Water quality

Water quantity

Erosion and Bank Stability

Environmental Flows

Native Vegetation

Heritage and Human Needs

Demographic trends

Vessel impacts

Works and Measures

Roles and Responsibilities of Agencies

Figure 4: Future development and environmental issues identified by respondents


7. RECOMMENDATIONS

The current review has identified a number of opportunities for improvement to help to streamline the operation of the River Murray Act 2003 and achieve greater benefits for the River Murray. While the existing Implementation Strategy delivers a high level statement of principles, it should be amended to include mechanisms and target indicators to measure the achievement of the priorities and strategies. The review has also revealed that the priorities should be revised to reflect the current key threats and emerging issues facing the River Murray, and to focus on issues that are not regulated under other legislation.

The Recommendations of this review are:

Specific initiatives and reforms to be explored include:

Opportunities to activate under-used or underutilised powers of the River Murray Act 2003 such as regulation of specific activities.

Align the use of powers in the River Murray Act 2003 to emerging initiatives and challenges such as the Basin Plan, variable climate conditions, water security and River Murray and infrastructure management.

Greater streamlining of the referral process in line with initiatives of the State Planning Review to target high priority developments and remove standard developments by way of exemptions and removing referral triggers.

Improve access to online information, update existing policies and determine the need for new policies to be developed.

Provide greater assistance to planners and applicants in relation to standard developments by providing more policies and guidance, including training materials and improved maps.

Provide more detailed technical guidance and scientific rationale for decisions on referred statutory applications to planners and applicants. Provide criteria relating to what constitutes a healthy River Murray and indicators to gauge the achievement of the Objects, ORMs and priorities and strategies.

1. Develop a new Implementation Strategy in light of the findings of the current review by 30 June 2012. This could include an assessment of the:

Priorities in light of an analysis of the key threats and emerging issues; and

Strategies to represent key powers and functions utilised under the River Murray Act 2003.

2. Consider inclusion of specific measurable outcomes and key performance indicators in the new Implementation Strategy.

3. Assess the potential to implement new initiatives and reforms based on findings of the review.

4. Assess the potential to cease or reduce current initiatives or programs that are assessed as adding limited value.


Review existing patrol capability and procedures and other compliance activities under the River Murray Act 2003. This would focus on providing education and negotiating with planning authorities and the community to resolve compliance issues.

Opportunities for improved data collection and sharing between agencies.

Using the annual report and triennial review processes to plan annual/three-yearly targets for the achievement of the priorities and strategies of the Implementation Strategy


LIST OF ACRONYMS

CLLMM Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Government of South Australia)

DFW Department for Water (Government of South Australia)

DTEI Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (Government of South Australia)

DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (Government of South Australia)

EMLR Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges

EPA Environment Protection Authority (Government of South Australia)

GIS Geographical Information System

MDB Murray-Darling Basin

MDBA Murray-Darling Basin Authority

NRM Natural resources management

ORM Objective(s) for a Healthy River Murray

PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Government of South Australia)

RMPA River Murray Protection Area

SA South Australia(n)

SA MDB NRM South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management

SASP South Australia’s Strategic Plan

SDL Sustainable Diversion Limit

WAP Water Allocation Plan

WFG Water for Good


REFERENCES

Australian Government 2011, Water for the Future, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, available http://www.environment.gov.au/water/australia/index.html, viewed 14 June 2011

Council of Australian Governments 2004, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative, Council of Australian Governments, Canberra

Department for Water 2010, River Murray Act 2003 Annual Report 2009-2010, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department for Water 2010, River Murray Act 2003 Annual Report 2009-2010: Supporting Document, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department for Water 2010, Save the River Murray Fund Annual Report 2009-10, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department for Water 2010, South Australia’s 2009-10 Report to the Basin Salinity Management Strategy, Department for Water Report DFW 2010/04, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Planning and Local Government 2008, Final Report of the Planning and Development Review Steering Committee, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Planning and Local Government 2010, The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide: a volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Planning and Local Government 2011, Murray and Mallee Region Plan: a volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2006, River Murray Act 2003 Implementation Strategy, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2006, River Murray Act 2003 Annual Report 2005-2006, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2006, Save the River Murray Fund Annual Report 2005-06, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2006, State Natural Resources Management Plan, Government of South Australia, Adelaide







http://www.environment.gov.au/water/australia/index.html


Environment Protection Authority 2003, State of the Environment Report for South Australia for 2003, Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide

Environment Protection Authority 2007, River Murray and Lower Lakes Catchment Risk Assessment for Water Quality, Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide

Environment Protection Authority 2008, Code of Practice for Vessel and Facility Management (Marine and Inland Waters), Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide

Environment Protection Authority 2008, State of the Environment Report for South Australia for 2008, Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide

Government of South Australia 2007, South Australia’s Strategic Plan, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Government of South Australia 2007, Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy 2007-2020, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Government of South Australia 2009, Water for Good, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Government of South Australia 2010, Murray Futures, Government of South Australia, Adelaide, available http://www.murrayfutures.sa.gov.au/, viewed 14 June 2011

Government of South Australia 2010, Securing the Future: a Long-term Plan for the Coorong, Lower Lakes, and Murray Mouth, Government of South Australia, Adelaide

Murray-Darling Basin Authority 2008, The Living Murray, Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra, available http://www.mdba.gov.au/programs/tlm, viewed 14 June 2011

Murray-Darling Basin Authority 2010, Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan: overview, Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra

River Murray Catchment Water Management Board 2001, Water Allocation Plan for the Noora Prescribed Wells Area, River Murray Catchment Water Management Board, Berri

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 2009, Regional NRM Plan: Strategic Plan 2009-2019, volume 1, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 2009, Draft Water Allocation Plan for the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 2009, Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 2010, Draft Water Allocation Plan for the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 2011, Water Allocation Plan for the Peake, Roby and Sherlock Prescribed Wells Area, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 2011, Water Allocation Plan for the Marne Saunders Prescribed Water Resources Area, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge

http://www.murrayfutures.sa.gov.au/

http://www.mdba.gov.au/programs/tlm

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| i | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Objects and Objectives for a Healthy River Murray (ORMs)

Appendix 2 – River Murray Protection Area

Appendix 3 – Consultation Bodies

Appendix 4 – Online Survey

Appendix 5– Questionnaire

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| ii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

APPENDIX 1 – OBJECTS AND OBJECTIVES FOR A HEALTHY RIVER MURRAY (ORMS)

Objects The River Murray Act 2003 is guided by a set of Objects or guiding principles to ensure adequate protection of River Murray values.

i. to ensure that all reasonable and practicable measures are taken to protect, restore and enhance the River Murray in

recognition of its critical importance to the South Australian community and its unique value from environmental,

economic and social perspectives and to give special acknowledgement to the need to ensure that the use and

management of the River Murray sustains the physical, economic and social well being of the people of the state and

facilitates the economic development of the state; and

ii. to provide mechanisms to ensure that any development or activities that may affect the River Murray are undertaken in

a way that provides the greatest benefit to, or protection of, the River Murray while at the same time providing for the

economic, social and physical well being of the community; and

iii. to provide a mechanism so that development and activities that are unacceptable in view of their adverse effects on the

River Murray are prevented from proceeding, regulated or brought to an end; and

iv. to promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development in relation to the use and management of the River

Murray; and

v. to ensure that proper weight is given to the significance and well being of the River Murray when legislative plans and

strategies are being developed and implemented; and

vi. to respect the interests and aspirations of Indigenous peoples with an association with the River Murray and to give due

recognition to the ability of those Indigenous people to make a significant contribution to the promotion of the principles

of ecologically sustainable development in relation to the use and management of the River Murray; and

vii. to respect the interests and views of other people within the community with an association with the River Murray and

to give due recognition to the ability of those people to make a significant contribution to the promotion of the principles

of ecologically sustainable development in relation to the use and management of the River Murray, and

viii. otherwise to ensure the future health, and to recognise the importance, of the River Murray.

Objectives for a Healthy River Murray (ORMs) The River Murray Act 2003 also sets out a list of Objectives for a Healthy River Murray (ORMs). The ORMs were developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and endorsed by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. They outline some of the specific improvements being sought for the River Murray.

RIVER HEALTH OBJECTIVES

There are four river health Objectives collectively covering the issues of:

maintenance, protection and restoration of key habitats and ecological processes;

protection and restoration of River Murray environments, particularly high-value floodplains and wetlands of national and international importance;

prevention of native plant and animal extinctions; and

avoiding and overcoming barriers to the migration of native animal species.

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| iii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW OBJECTIVES

Three environmental flow Objectives address the matters of:

reinstatement and maintenance of ecologically significant elements of the River Murray system natural flow regime;

keeping open the Murray mouth in order to maintain navigation and fish passage and to enhance the health of the River Murray system and Coorong; and

significantly improving connectivity between and within the environments constituted by the River Murray system.

WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

The four water quality Objectives seek to:

improve water quality within the River Murray system to a level that sustains the ecological processes, environmental values and productive capacity of the system;

minimise the impact of salinity on the ecological processes and productive capacity of the River Murray system;

manage nutrient levels within the River Murray system so as to prevent or reduce the occurrence of algal blooms, and to minimise other nutrient related impacts; and

minimise the impact of potential pollutants, such as sediment and pesticides, on the environments within the River Murray system.

HUMAN DIMENSION OBJECTIVES

The human dimension Objectives aim to:

implement a responsive and adaptable approach to the management of the River Murray System, taking into account ecological outcomes, community interests and new information as it comes to hand;

promote the health and proper management of the River Murray system by gathering, considering and disseminating the community’s knowledge and understanding of the system;

take into account the interests of the community by recognising indigenous and other cultural and historical relationships with the River Murray environs, and by ensuring appropriate participation in processes associated with the management of the system; and

recognise the importance of a healthy river to the economic, social and cultural prosperity of communities along the length of the river, and the community more generally.

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| iv | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

APPENDIX 2 – RIVER MURRAY PROTECTION AREA

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| v | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

APPENDIX 3 – CONSULTATION BODIES

The River Murray Regulations 2003 prescribe bodies for consultation in relation to the development and review of the Implementation Strategy. These are:

1. The Local Government Association;

2. The Murray and Mallee Local Government Association;

3. The Southern Hills Local Government Association Inc;

4. The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin regional Natural Resources Management Board;

5. The Aboriginal Heritage Committee established under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA); and

6. The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc

DFW contacted these bodies through a formal letter and invited responses to the consultation questionnaire. The SA MDB NRM Board was also invited to participate at a consultation workshop.

Consultation also targeted to a wide range of key stakeholders and the public including State government agencies, councils, industry bodies and special interest groups. Over one hundred key stakeholders were targeted as well as the general public. Thirty-seven completed questionnaires, online survey responses and comments were received. The following table shows key stakeholder bodies targeted for consultation and the agencies that provided a written survey response.

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| vi | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Agencies Consulted

Provided Survey

response or comment

Participated at

Workshop

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board

* *

Murray-Darling Basin Authority *

The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations

Regional Development Australia Murraylands and Riverland Inc

Riverland Development Corporation Inc

Regional Development Australia: Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island

Regional Development Australia: Barossa

Natural Resources Management Council *

Department of Primary Industries and Resources *

Department for Environment and Natural Resources * *

Environment Protection Authority * *

Department of the Premier and Cabinet * *

Department of Trade and Economic Development

Department for Transport, Energy & Infrastructure * *

South Australian Water Corporation *

South Australian Tourism Commission *

Department of Planning and Local Government * *

Alexandrina Council * *

Coorong District Council *

Murray Bridge Council *

Renmark Paringa Council *

Mid Murray Council * *

District Council of Loxton Waikerie * *

Berri Barmera Council * *

Mount Barker Council

Kingston District Council

Karoonda East Murray Council

Southern Mallee District Council

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| vii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Adelaide Hills Council

Berri Barmera Council

District Council of Mount Barker *

Kingston Council

Karoonda East Murray Council

Southern Mallee District Council

Adelaide Hills Council *

Berri Barmera Local Action Planning Committee

Boating Industry Association of South Australia *

Central Irrigation Trust

Conservation Council of South Australia

Coorong and Tatiara Local Action Planning Committee

Dairy SA

Development Assessment Commission

Development Policy Advisory Committee

Eastern Hills and Murray Plains Catchment Group Inc.

Engineers Australia (SA Division)

Goolwa to Wellington Local Action Planning Group

Griffens Marina Blanchetown *

Houseboat Hirers Association

Industry Development Board – Horticulture

Irrigation Australia

KESAB *

Land Management Corporation

Lower River Murray Drought Reference Group

Loxton to Bookpurnong Local Action Planning Committee

Mannum Aboriginal Community Association

Mannum to Wellington Local Action Planning Committee Inc

Mannum Marina

Master Builders Association of South Australia Inc

Members of Parliament whose seats include the River Murray Protection Areas

Meningie Narrung Lake irrigators Association

Meningie Progress Association

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| viii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Mid Murray Local Action Planning Committee Inc

Murray Darling Association

Murray Mallee Local Action Planning Committee Inc

Murraywatch

Native Vegetation Council

Nature Foundation of South Australia

Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee

Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority

Pelican Point Shack Owner’s Association

Planning Institute of Australia

Quality Houseboats *

Renmark Irrigation Trust

Renmark to the Border Local Action Planning (LAP) Association

River Glen Marina

Riverland Futures Taskforce

River Murray High Energy Group *

Riverland Development Corporation

Riverland West Local Action Planning

Riverland Wine Industry Development Council

River Murray Boat Owners Association

River Murray Urban Users

Rural Solutions SA

SA Heritage Council

SA Native Title Services Ltd

SARDI Aquatic Sciences

South Australian Farmers Federation

South Australian Fishing Industry Council

South Australian Murray Irrigators

South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council

South Australian Wine Industry Association Inc

Southern Fisherman’s Association *

Steed and Pohl Surveyors *

Sunlands Irrigation

Surveyors Board of South Australia

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| ix | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

The Australian Lot Feeders’ Association

The Horse Federation of South Australia (Inc)

Unforgettable Houseboats – Mannum

University of Adelaide

Wakeboard SA

Wilderness Society *

Winemakers’ Federation of South Australia

Other individual members of the public *

Internal staff of the Department for Water * *

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| x | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

APPENDIX 4 – ONLINE SURVEY

River Murray Act 2003

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy

The River Murray Act 2003 (the Act) came into operation on 24 November 2003 and aims to ensure the River Murray is protected from activities that could negatively impact on the health of the River.

The Act requires the Minister for the River Murray to prepare an Implementation Strategy for the Act which was finalised in 2006 The Implementation Strategy must:

set out the priorities that the Minister will pursue in order to achieve the Objects and Objectives for a Healthy River Murray of the River Murray Act 2003; and

set out the strategies that the Minister intends to adopt to meet those priorities; and

take into account the State Natural Resources Management Plan and the Planning Strategy.

The Act’s Implementation Strategy is due for review in 2011. To perform a comprehensive review of the existing Implementation Strategy and ensure the views of relevant organisations and members of the public are taken into account, the Department for Water is undertaking consultation as a part of the review process. We are interested in your input regarding your experiences and exposure to the Act and its Implementation Strategy. The survey should take you 15-20 minutes to complete.

Results will be used to generate statistics and provide examples for the review of the Implementation Strategy. Individual responses will be treated confidentially and comments will not be attributed to a specific person or organisation. These results may be published in the Report on the Review of the Implementation Strategy due in June 2011.

If you have any questions regarding this survey, please send your queries to: [email protected].

An online version of the survey and further information can be found at: http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/

Please submit the survey to:

[email protected]

fax 8463 7900, clearly marked ‘ATTENTION: Policy and Urban Water’, or

River Murray Act program, Policy and Urban Water Division, Department for Water, GPO Box 2834, Adelaide SA 5001.

River Murray Act Implementation Strategy Survey

This questionnaire will ask questions about your experience with the Act and its Implementation Strategy. If you have no experience with the Act, this questionnaire is not likely to applicable.

Name:

(Individual responses will be treated confidentially and comments will not be attributed to a specific person or organisation)

Organisation:

mailto:[email protected]

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xi | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

(If you are responding on behalf of an organisation)

Job Title:

Your Email Address:

QUESTION 1: Are you aware of the Act?

Yes

No

QUESTION 2: Have you or your organisation had any experience or involvement with the Act and its implementation through the following avenues?

(Please tick one or more as appropriate)

Education, training or awareness activities

Development application or other application referred to the Minister for the River Murray

Provided assistance in composing an application to be referred to the Minister for the River Murray on behalf of an applicant

Organisation who refers applications to the Minister for the River Murray on behalf of applicants

Contacted for input as a part of the one-stop-shop

Duty of care or other compliance issue raised in relation to your activities

Reported an activity or incident that caused harm to the River Murray

Policy development

Other (please give details)

List other experience or involvement with the Act:

QUESTION 3: In relation to Question 2, did this experience or involvement relate to a particular type of environmental issue? Please tick one or more as appropriate

Native Vegetation

Environmental Flows

Water Quality

Heritage (Aboriginal, European and natural heritage)


List other types of environmental issues

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

QUESTION 4: Please rate your overall satisfaction with the experience or involvement.

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Average

Poor


QUESTION 5: Please provide any comments in relation to your experience or the outcome

QUESTION 6: Are you aware of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy?

Yes

No

QUESTION 7: Does your organisation use the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy in any way?

Yes

No

If you answered no, please go to Question 9

QUESTION 8: How does your organisation use the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy?

Please tick one or more as appropriate

To guide policy development

For information regarding the priorities and strategies of the Act


List other uses of the Implementation Strategy

QUESTION 9: Are you aware of the River Murray Protection Areas?

Yes

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xiii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

No

If you answered no, please go to question 11

QUESTION 10: Do you think that the River Murray Protection Areas apply to priority areas for the River Murray?

They target the priority areas and activities for the River Murray

They should be targeted to more specific activities. Please explain your answer below.

They should cover different geographic areas. Please explain your answer below.

They should cover different geographic area and should be targeted towards more specific activities.

Further comments for Question 10

QUESTION 11: What are the major development and/or environmental issues that concern you or your organisation in the River Murray Protection Areas? Tick one or more as appropriate

Shacks and houseboats

Illegal development

Other buildings, structures or earthworks (such as jetties,

moorings, cutting private roads and beaches, site preparation and

excavation)

Irrigation and farming

River Pollution

Environmental flows (flow regime to meet the needs of the

environment)

Water use efficiency (water wise technology and development of

alternative water sources)

River bank collapse

Erosion and soil quality

Salinity

Native vegetation (clearance, loss of habitat, loss of significant

trees, incursion of exotic species, degraded landscape)

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xiv | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Amenity values

Heritage (Aboriginal heritage, important landscapes and geological

values, state and built heritage places)

Climate change

QUESTION 12: This question comes in four parts. In light of your response above, how relevant are the four priorities identified in the current Implementation Strategy to the key development and/or environmental issues that concern you or your organisation?

Part A: Abate the clearance of native vegetation:

Very relevant

Some relevance

Not relevant

Part B: Achieve an environmental flow regime for the River

Very relevant

Some relevance

Not relevant

Part C: Improve water quality

Very relevant

Some relevance

Not relevant

Part D: Conserving and protecting heritage values

Very relevant

Some relevance

Not relevant

QUESTION 13: What other priorities do you think would be useful or how do you think the current priorities could be improved?

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xv | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

QUESTION 14: Under the River Murray Act 2003 the Minister for the River Murray has powers to achieve the Act’s Objects and Objectives for a Healthy River Murray. There are also opportunities to activate and use new powers.

Which of the following powers have you or your organisation been exposed to in relation to the River Murray Act?

You have had conditions imposed on your application for a statutory authorisation such as a development, licence and permit application

Your organisation has received input into a statutory instrument such as a development plan amendment or draft regulations

An authorised officer has issued you an order to prevent activities that will or have the potential to cause harm to the River Murray

An authorised officer has negotiated with you to inform you of obligations under the River Murray Act, secure compliance or protect against harm

You have participated in education and awareness raising activities

You have been involved in interagency programs to promote the protection, improvement or enhancement of the River Murray

You have used policies, guidelines and/or fact sheets

Please provide more details:

QUESTION 15: Which powers do you or your organisation consider to have the potential to be the most effective in addressing priority challenges for the River Murray and why?

POWER Effective Neutral Not Effective

POWER 1: Impose conditions on statutory authorisations such as development, licence and permit applications (including refusal of the application);

POWER 2: Provide input into development plans and/or

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xvi | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

other agencies’ policies

POWER 3: Issue protection or reparation orders, or restraining orders to prevent activities that will or have the potential to cause harm to the River Murray;

POWER 4: Negotiate with landowners to secure compliance or protect against harm;

POWER 5: Undertaking education and awareness raising activities;

POWER 6: Issue policies, guidelines and factsheets

POWER 7: Enter management agreements with landowners to require activities to be undertaken in a specified way, or require water or other natural resources of the river to be managed in a specified way;

POWER 8: Take bonds to insure against any harm caused to the river by certain activities;

POWER 9: Require landowners to off-set any harmful impacts of their activities;

POWER 10: Prohibit or restrict specified activities in the River Murray Protection Areas;

POWER 11: prescribe requirements or conditions on specified activities in the River Murray Protection Areas;

POWER 12: Designate the River Murray Protection Areas for different purposes or for purposes under other Acts.

Please provide more details:

QUESTION 16: A number of policies, fact sheets and guidelines have been developed to assist in the implementation of the Act. Please tick which ones you have used

Neutral and Beneficial Effects Guidelines

Overview and General Provisions

Special provision – Aquaculture

Activity Provision – Coast

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xvii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Activity Provision – Heritage

Activity Provision – Wetlands and Floodplains

FACT SHEET Water licences for marinas, canal estates and other artificial water bodies

FACT SHEET Overview of the River Murray Act 2003

FACT SHEET Referrals under the River Murray Act 2003

FACT SHEET General duty of care under the River Murray Act 2003

QUESTION 17: Have you or your organisation been involved in any consultation to do with these documents?

Yes

No

QUESTION 18: Of the documents you or your organisation has used, how useful were they?

Useful Not Useful

Neutral and Beneficial Effects Guidelines

Overview and General Provisions

Special provision – Aquaculture

Activity Provision – Coast

Activity Provision – Heritage

Activity Provision – Wetlands and Floodplains

FACT SHEET Water licences for marinas, canal estates and other artificial water bodies

FACTSHEET Overview of the River Murray Act 2003

FACT SHEET Referrals under the River Murray Act 2003

FACT SHEET General duty of care under the River Murray Act 2003

What have you used these publications for?

QUESTION 19: Do you think there are other priority areas where policies/fact sheets/guidelines are needed?

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xviii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Yes

No

QUESTION 20: If yes, what other priority areas should policies/fact sheets/guidelines be created for?

QUESTION 21: What information, training, and/or education programs have you or your organisation been exposed to in relation to the River Murray Act?

Consultation

On the job training

Policies, Guidelines and factsheets

Website

Networking and training events

Negotiation or one-on-one communication with DFW staff (compliance or referral assessment officers)

River Murray Act Annual Report

Other (please give details below)

List other information, training, and/or education programs

QUESTION 22: Were the information, training, and/or education programs useful

Yes

No

Please provide suggestions for improvement or other information, training, and/or education programs that are needed

QUESTION 23: Please make any other comments about the Act or the Implementation Strategy?

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xix | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Thank you for completing this survey

Details for Submission are on page 1

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xx | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

APPENDIX 5 – QUESTIONNAIRE

Review of River Murray Act Implementation Strategy 2006

The River Murray Act 2003 (the Act) came into operation on 24 November 2003 and aims to ensure the River Murray is protected from activities that could impact on the health of the River. Section 21 of the Act requires the Minister for the River Murray to prepare an Implementation Strategy for the Act. The Implementation Strategy must:

Set out the priorities that the Minister will pursue in order to achieve the Objects of this Act and to further the implementation of the Objectives for a Healthy River Murray; and

Set out the strategies that the Minister intends to adopt to meet those priorities; and

Take into account the State Natural Resources Management Plan and the Planning Strategy.

This survey has been designed to gather your input into the review of the Implementation Strategy, as well as gather your thoughts on other aspects of the Act. Please type your response beneath the relevant questions. Not all questions will be relevant to you/your organisation, so please feel free to answer N/A where appropriate.

Section 1: Priorities for the Implementation Strategy

Q1: What are the major issues facing your organisation in relation to the River Murray and its catchments?

Q2: In light of your response to Q1, are the four priorities identified in the current River Murray Act Implementation Strategy (listed below) the most appropriate priorities for the revised Implementation Strategy? If not, what other areas should the new Implementation Strategy focus on?

Current priorities: 1. Abate the clearance of vegetation 2. Achieve an environmental flow regime for the River 3. Improve water quality 4. Conserving and protecting heritage values

Q3: Looking back since 2006 (when the current Implementation Strategy was finalised) what do you believe are the key outcomes achieved as a result of these priorities?

Section 2: Strategies to achieve the priorities under the Implementation Strategy

The following questions relate to the strategies outlined in the Implementation Strategy to address the priorities listed in Q2. The questions are grouped according to the powers and functions of the Minister for the River Murray. Each strategy is listed in italics with questions relating to it underneath, and a space for your answers and comments.

Providing Advice and Direction

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xxi | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Phase in the referral process, focusing on priority areas and commencing with the referral of development applications that have the greatest potential to impact on the priority areas.

Q4: Now that the referral process (including one-stop-shop and assessment of referred statutory authorisations and instruments by the Minister for the River Murray) is fully operational, do you feel that it focuses on the right areas and activities? Could the referral process be more efficient through e.g. greater focus on input to statutory instruments (such as Development Plans) and reduced focus on assessment of statutory authorisations (such as individual Development Applications)?

Support the development and implementation of policies by state and local government that align and seek to further the objects of the Act and assist councils and government agencies to amend their plans and policies to take into account the objects and ORMs when administering a related operational Act.

Q5: How have the River Murray Act and the Implementation Strategy been used in your organisation to inform plans and policies?

Support referring bodies by providing education and written guidelines where required.

The following documents have been produced:

- Neutral and Beneficial Effects Guidelines

- Fact Sheet - Water Licenses for Marinas, Canal Estates and Other Artificial Water Bodies

- Fact Sheet - Overview of the River Murray Act 2003

- Fact Sheet - Referrals under the River Murray Act 2003

- Fact Sheet – General Duty of care under the River Murray Act 2003

- Referral Assessment Policy Overview and General Provisions

- Aquaculture Activity Provision

- Coast Special Provision

- Heritage Special Provision

- Wetlands and Floodplains Special Provision

Q6: Have you used any of these documents? Which ones? Have you found them useful?

Q7: Are more policies required? In what areas/on what topics?

Q8: Do you (or does your organisation) have adequate knowledge of these guidelines?

Q9: Have you ever sought advice from DFW or the former DWLBC on matters relating to the River Murray Act? Was it easy to find the right person? Was the advice helpful? Did this lead to a positive outcome for your organisation and/or the River Murray?

Support referring bodies by using gazetted exemptions to refine referral process.

The following exemptions have been created:

Outbuildings and Farm Buildings Exemption

Temporary drought relief exemption for the extension or relocation of pumping infrastructure and temporary installation of riverbank stabilisation measures. (Revoked on 3/2/2011)

Q10: Do you consider these exemptions to be worthwhile in helping to streamline the referral process? Are the conditions for these exemptions onerous? Could the exemptions be improved?

Q11: Are there more activities you would like to see exemptions created for?

http://www.test.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/fs35_overview.pdf

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xxii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Support referring bodies by making policies accessible from council offices and DFW offices and website.

Q12: Have you found the policies to be accessible? If not, how would you like the policies to be made available?

Support referring bodies by conducting consultation on policies that are not based on existing statutory or widely-consulted and accepted policies or plans.

Q13: Has your organisation been involved in consultation regarding policies under the Act? Has this consultation met your needs?

Promoting Integration

Develop networks to support coordination and integration of programs and policies to enhance opportunities for joint or complementary programs.

Q14: Do you feel that the roles and responsibilities for the general implementation of the Act are clear?

Q15: Please give examples of where effective integration and coordination has occurred and useful networks established. Where is there room for improvement?

Integrate the administration of legislation through input into statutory instruments under the related operational Acts.

Q16: Has the Act helped to integrate legislative arrangements relating to the regulation of the River Murray? How?

Undertaking or Promoting programs

Use management agreements to encourage, facilitate or achieve outcomes where appropriate.

Q17: Does your organisation use management agreements (either under this Act or another Act)? If you use them under another Act do you think this is a useful regulatory mechanism and why? In light of the broad scope of the Act, do you think greater use of management agreements could lead to beneficial outcomes or would these duplicate mechanisms under other Acts?

Q18: The Act contains several other powers (listed below). Of these, which would you/your organisation consider to be the most effective to address priority challenges for the River Murray and why? Would you like to see these powers more actively used?

Other powers available under the Act include powers to:

Take bonds to insure against any harm caused to the river by certain activities;

Require landowners to off-set any harmful impacts of their activities;

Provide a definition/s of “harm” for the purposes of the Act’s duty of care;

Prohibit or restrict specified activities in the River Murray Protection Areas;

Prescribe requirements or conditions on specified activities in the River Murray Protection Areas;

Designate the River Murray Protection Areas for different purposes or for purposes under other Acts.

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xxiii | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

Develop formal networks and agreements to ensure a high level of cooperation in data-collection and sharing.

Q19: Do you feel that there is an appropriate level of data sharing? Do you see benefit in further sharing of information? Please give examples.

Enforcement and Compliance

Support the enforcement of relevant provisions of related operational Acts, including licence conditions, by responsible agencies, through the provision of training and awareness about the Act and other agencies’ statutory obligations.

Q20: Do you feel that your (or your organisation’s) role in the enforcement of the Act is clear? What support would assist you? Do you have any suggestions for improvement in relation to compliance and enforcement of the Act?

Appoint appropriate authorised officers under the RM Act.

Q21: Do you feel that authorised officers under the Act are achieving positive outcomes for the River Murray?

Q22: Do you have any other comments that you would like to make in relation to the Implementation Strategy or implementation of the Act that has not been covered elsewhere?

Review of the River Murray Act Implementation Strategy| xxiv | DEPARTMENT FOR WATER

review of the river murray act implementation strategy · 2015. 4. 27. · the river murray act...

Documents