Cumulative Impacts in Water Resource Development
Brian Finlayson1, Jon Nevill2 and Tony Ladson3
1
School of Social and Environmental Enquiry
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne 3010
AUSTRALIA
E-mail: brianlf@unimelb.edu.au
2
Onlyoneplanet Consulting
PO Box 106
Hampton 3188
Australia
3
Institute for Sustainable Water Resources
Department of Civil Engineering
Monash University
Victoria 3800
“Water Down Under” conference, Adelaide April 14-17, 2008
Abstract
Cumulative impacts occur where decisions made, apparently within the terms of legislation or
prevailing policy, produce a series of small scale, individual outcomes that cumulatively have an effect
contrary to the original intent of the legislation. We illustrate this problem using three examples. The
Victorian Catchment and Land Protection Act (1994) is one of a series of Acts that have made special
provision for land use determinations in declared water supply catchments. Ultimately, however, these
intentions get put into practice through local council planning schemes where zoning provisions
mandate acceptable land uses in any area. Recent decisions by local council planning committees,
invariably upheld on appeal, take account only of specific site scale activity. There is no ability within
this planning process to take account of the clear intention of the Act to control land use across the
wider catchment.
Although catchment water resources are finite, water authorities have often been unwilling to impose
usage limits until catchment hydrology is at crisis point. This is perhaps most starkly illustrated in the
Murray-Darling, where a combination of surface and groundwater entitlements have resulted in gross
over-allocation to human needs.
Farm dams are invariably small in the context of the larger drainage basins within which they are
situated and the smaller of these dams have traditionally been outside the influence of government
regulation. Most individual farm dams have non-measurable impacts at the scale at which planning of
catchment water resources is undertaken. Collectively, however, farm dams can store and extract a
significant proportion of the available resource and may deny water to downstream users and to
downstream aquatic environments.
1. INTRODUCTION
There are many Acts of Parliament, as well as important strategic policies, that are based on good
intentions and sound logic but which fail at the level of implementation. This is particularly the case
with respect to attempts to control the cumulative impacts of incremental development occurring over
a substantial period of time. Even though a strategy may be put in place to control or prohibit new
developments which would (for example) extract additional water from a catchment, it appears to be
almost a general rule that the strategy will be subverted by numerous small approval decisions
running directly counter to the intent, if not the letter of the strategy (Odum 1982). This tendency is
compounded where the costs of resource degradation fall on the community (and future generations)
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
rather than on the individual who benefits from resource exploitation (Hardin 1968). In this paper we
examine three case studies: (1) tree farming in Victoria, (2) groundwater protection in the MurrayDarling Basin, and (3) farm dams. Each of these illustrate different aspects of cumulative impacts and
serve to make the point that this is a persistent and widespread problem.
2. CASE STUDY 1: CATCHMENT PROTECTION AND TREE FARMING IN
VICTORIA.
In this case study we explore one example of the implementation of legislation designed to protect
water supply catchments in Victoria but where the ‘whole of catchment’ protection appears to be
confounded by decision-making at the local scale. The Soil Conservation and Land Utilization Act,
passed by the Victorian Parliament in 1958, was a progressive and forward looking Act for its time.
Among other things, it set the basis for the declaration of water supply catchments and provided for a
process by which those catchments would be protected through land use determinations intended to
protect water yield and quality. This Act was superseded by the Catchment and Land Protection
(CALP) Act 1994 which incorporated similar objectives.
Given this legislative background, it could be expected that land use planning in catchments with
protection under the Act would reflect this special status. A recent case in the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) concerned the Gellibrand Catchment that was originally
declared as a water supply catchment under the Soil Conservation and Land Utilization Act 1958. A
Land Use Determination for this catchment was gazetted in August 1983 (Ransome, 1983). The
Gellibrand catchment became a Special Area under the 1994 CALP Act and the 1983 Land Use
Determination remains in place.
The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CMA), in whose region the Gellibrand
Catchment is located, released a Regional Catchment Strategy for this area that was accredited by
both the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments in 2004 (Victorian Government Gazette, 26
February, 2004). As this is a more recent document than the 1983 Land Use Determination it can be
argued that it should be given priority consideration in planning decisions affecting these catchments.
The VCAT case concerned an application by a forestry company to convert 59 hectares of former
farmland into a blue gum (Eucalyptus nitens) plantation. The decision of the Colac Otway Shire
Council to approve the application, which was also agreed to by the Corangamite CMA, was
challenged by a group of concerned local residents and they appealed the decision to VCAT.
The case, Farquhar v Colac Otway SC (VCAT Ref P2284/2006), was heard in December 2006 and
the judgement issued in January 2007. The applicants presented a body of evidence to the Tribunal
that discussed the status of the catchment as a declared water supply catchment and its relation to the
Regional Catchment Strategy of the CMA. Much has changed since the original 1983 Land Use
Determination was gazetted for this catchment, particularly in the way in which forestry operations are
managed. The more intensive development of Eucalypt plantations with rotation lengths much shorter
than envisaged in 1983 indicate that there is a need for this determination to be revisited and revised,
though both the Colac Otway SC and the CMA were happy to approve the plantation without
considering these changes.
It is the case that short rotation Eucalypt plantations would seriously affect water yield in this
catchment. While there are no research data specifically for the Gellibrand catchment, Peel et al.
(2002) have reported on the impact of various logging rotations on low flows in the North Esk River in
Tasmania. This study is of particular relevance to the present case as Launceston sources its water
supply from the North Esk and St Patricks Rivers. Water is taken directly from the rivers and there are
no storage structures. In these circumstances, it is the summer low flows that are critical to the
reliability of supply and it is precisely these flows that are likely to be most affected by changes to the
vegetation cover of the catchments, as water demand by the trees is greatest in the warmer summer
months. While there are storages in the Gellibrand catchment (West Gellibrand Reservoir and
Olangolah Reservoir) they are quite small and do not have over-year storage capacity. In this case it
is reasonable to compare the North Esk/St Patricks case with the Gellibrand. Climatic conditions are
similar at these two locations. The modelling results of Peel et al. (2002) provide the best estimate
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
2
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
currently available of the likely impact of plantation establishment on the water yield of the Gellibrand
River and they are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Observed mean daily runoff and modelled mean daily runoff for 20 year logging
rotation and plantation forestry in the North Esk catchment (from Peel et al., 2002)
Variable
Mean Daily Runoff (ML)
Observed daily runoff
Modelled daily runoff
1st
465
rotation
448
Modelled daily runoff 2nd rotation
310
Observed – modelled
1st
rotation
3.6% decline
Observed – modelled
2nd
rotation
33.3% decline
In this modelled scenario, the catchment is progressively converted to regenerated E. regnans and
plantations of E. nitens during the first 20 years and the average mean daily flow over that period
declines by nearly 4%. In the subsequent 20 year period, when the whole catchment has already
been logged and replanted once, the mean daily flow declines by 33% relative to the present situation
(Table 1). If only the lowest 40% of flows are considered (and these nearly all occur in the critical
summer period), during the second rotation flows are reduced by 25%. Clearly there is cause for
concern about the impact of logging and conversion to tree farming on the water yield of catchments in
climatic areas of this kind and the Gellibrand is a typical case.
In the case before the Tribunal, only 59 hectares were under consideration and it is the case that the
impact of the conversion of such a small area from pasture to Eucalypts would not be measurable at
the catchment scale. VCAT therefore refused the residents application and the plantation will
proceed. While the VCAT judgement specifically recognises that this is in a Declared Water Supply
Catchment, this fact has no bearing on the judgement that was delivered. Instead, the Tribunal
concentrated on the local planning scheme under which this area is a Farming Zone where timber
production is a permitted land use.
With regard to the applicants’ argument regarding the cumulative effects of many small cases such as
this, the Tribunal had this to say:
21 The impact of the current proposal on water yield in the Gellibrand Catchment is very small. The
Applicants submit that I should look beyond this consideration, to the cumulative impact of new
timber plantations within the catchment.
22 I do not have before me any real evidence, as to the likelihood that there would be extensive
conversion of existing grazing land within the Gellibrand catchment to timber plantations.
Moreover it is not evident that even if a significant proportion of the grazing within the catchment
was converted to timber plantations, the cumulative impact would be significant in this catchment.1
23 Importantly, I do not think this issue, that is the impact of timber plantations on water yields in the
Gellibrand catchments, or catchments generally, can properly be dealt with on a permit application
by permit application basis. In my view this is a strategic issue. If necessary it is a matter which
should be dealt with by the planning authority, and the catchment management authority, and other
interested persons, in a strategic review of the relevant planning scheme provisions. In such a
context water yield may be an important consideration, but it will not be the only planning
consideration relevant to the ultimate strategic solution. These are all matters which are beyond
the scope of this Tribunal in the context of this application.
Despite the fact that there is an Act of Parliament that specifically names and protects the Gellibrand
Catchment as a Water Supply Catchment, the Tribunal took the view that this had no relevance when
set alongside the local council Planning Scheme. It is our view that it is the role of a body such as the
Tribunal to point out to the local council that there was protection given to this catchment by the Act
and that they should take note of this in developing a planning scheme and in issuing permits.
1
The modelling study of Peel et al (2002) had been submitted as evidence to the Tribunal.
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
3
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
Further, it could be argued that VCAT should have referred this application back to the Council and
asked them how their decision met the objectives of the CALP Act.
3. CASE STUDY 2: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE MURRAYDARLING BASIN.
The extended catchment of the Murray-Darling Basin overlaps four of Australia’s States plus the small
Australian Capital Territory. In 1995 pressing problems of land and water degradation, and the decline
of widespread and important environmental values in the Basin, led only to a cap on river water
extraction, even though the importance of the surface water / groundwater connection was evident.
Moreover, States have been extremely slow to implement core groundwater reforms added to the
Framework in 1996. This delay, combined with the failure of States to implement commitments to the
precautionary management of natural resources, has magnified the environmental and economic
crisis facing the Basin.
Rivers and groundwaters are connected. When we extract water from a river’s groundwater supply, we
diminish that river’s flow – even though the effect may not be noticed for some time (Evans 2007).
Most Australian rivers feed on groundwater most of the time. Generally speaking, freshwater biologists
and river managers underplay the huge significance of groundwater in maintaining the health of rivers,
streams and wetlands, with the result that groundwater policy and management does not get the
scrutiny it deserves – and needs.
Waters of many Australian rivers, streams and aquifers had been over-allocated – in some cases
grossly over-allocated. In the Basin, total annual water entitlements issued by State water
management agencies amounted to 14,680 GL in 1994/95, of which 12,131 GL were actually diverted,
compared to the annual Basin river flow of 12,896 GL/yr. In other words, licensed entitlements were
114% of the average available water, while usage ran at 94%.
Over 50% of the Basin’s average annual runoff (23,850 GL) had been diverted, compared to less than
3% in all but one of Australia’s remaining drainage divisions. The median annual river flow at its mouth
prior to development is estimated at 11,318 GL, less than the average annual volume diverted for
human use. It is not surprising that outflow to the sea has stopped on several occasions in recent
years.
Groundwater extraction is often clustered around aquifers underlying river valleys (Fig. 1)
demonstrating, at a practical level, the interconnected nature of the resource. The over-allocation of
the Basin’s waters, and the pressing environmental problems of land degradation, water quality and
declining biodiversity values forced the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and the MurrayDarling Basin Commission to confront the concept of limiting catchment development. Although
integrated catchment management had, by this time, been the subject of long-standing discussion, the
Council chose only to cap water extraction from rivers. No controls were mooted on the development
of irrigated land, harvesting of floodplain water, construction of levee banks and farm dams, draining
wetlands, clearance of native vegetation, or extraction of groundwater – all issues of immediate
concern to catchments in water crisis. It should be said, however, that all these issues were under
discussion within State water agencies. The important point is that the Council was moving slowly, well
behind current science and community concern – in spite of the urgency of the issues.
The Council introduced an interim cap in 1995 and a permanent cap on the diversion of water from the
Basin’s river system from 1 July 1997. The two primary objectives driving the decision to implement
the Cap were:

to maintain and, where appropriate, improve existing flow regimes in the waterways of the
Murray-Darling Basin to protect and enhance the riverine environment; and

to achieve sustainable consumptive use by developing and managing Basin water resources
to meet ecological, commercial and social needs.
The cap was defined as: “The volume of [river] water that would have been diverted under 1993/94
levels of development.” The cap, as a result, fluctuates from year to year, depending mostly on
climate. In practice, the total cap varies above and below roughly 11,000 GL/yr.
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
4
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
In February 1994 CoAG adopted “a strategic framework for the reform of the Australian water industry”
– to become known as the Water Reform Framework. The Framework had two central elements:
economic reform to increase competition and efficiency within the industry, and environmental reform
to increase emphasis on sustainable use of natural resources, and protection of environmental
(especially biodiversity) values.
Figure 3: NSW river reaches and groundwater management areas. Source: SKM (2006:103),
from NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation data.
The Framework was to evolve over the following decade, through agreements reached both within
and subsequent to CoAG meetings. Of immediate interest are the amendments summarised in a letter
from the Prime Minister to State Premiers and Chief Ministers of 10 February 1997. The governments
agreed to specific additions then referred to as the 1996 CoAG water reform framework, including
agreements focused on groundwater:

to integrate groundwater and surface water resource management;

to develop a nationally consistent definition and approach to calculating sustainable
groundwater yield;

to prepare groundwater management plans, policies and strategies;

to base groundwater allocations on groundwater management plans;

to ensure that such plans included environmental water provisions in accordance with agreed
principles; and

to address and retrieve over-allocation issues on a plan-by-plan basis.
Commitments at this level should have prompted rapid implementation action in a Commission
committed to “take a visionary approach, provide leadership, and be prepared to make difficult
decisions” (quoted from the Commission’s mission statement).
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
5
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
While the cap on river water diversions has been, overall, a limited success, full compliance with the
cap has not yet been achieved. After more than a decade, procedures allowing a full audit of cap
compliance are still to be finalised. Queensland in particular delayed compliance measures while
rapidly expanding water allocations. In an examination of the lower Balonne catchment (Queensland),
Dr Poh-Ling Tan (now at Griffith University) found evidence indicating that in the years immediately
following the interim cap, the Queensland State Government maintained a casual attitude to
increasing floodplain water harvesting, allowed catchment farm dams to increase by 90%, and
licensed a 50% increase in diversions. The total capacity of off-stream dams in the Lower Balonne
increased from 247 GL in 1994 to 827 GL in 1999. Even the most recent cap audit report draws
attention to the lack of agreed measures for assessing Queensland compliance with the cap, more
than a decade after the cap was first imposed.
Dr Tan also drew attention to other important issues which have pervaded water management in all
Australian States: a cavalier attitude on the part of State Government water agencies to both
procedure and accountability, political influence on bestowing water allocations, and issues of
pervasive non-compliance (on the part of irrigators) with extraction licence conditions. All these have
undermined effective management of catchment cumulative impacts across the nation (Nevill 2007a).
Over-allocations have been reduced during the last decade, however the reductions have been slow,
and have not been adequate to provide the environmental flows the river needs. Total surface and
groundwater usage for 2004/05 is still around 9,300 GL compared with the river’s natural median flow
of 11,300 GL/yr. If total surface water entitlements for 2004/05 (at about 11,000 GL) are added to total
groundwater entitlements (see below) they sum to around 14,000 GL/yr, still a lot more than the river’s
natural annual average flow at the Murray’s mouth of around 13,000 GL/yr. The waters of the Basin
remain grossly over-allocated for human use, and the Basin’s environments continue to suffer.
Around 2000, the Commission’s groundwater consultants recommended that the cap on river
extraction should be extended to groundwater – a basic commonsense approach which should have
been implemented earlier. But where was the response? Where indeed was the response on the part
of State water management agencies to their long-standing CoAG commitments?
In 2004, the Commission published a report by their Groundwater Technical Reference Group
(GTRG): Estimated impact of groundwater use on streamflow in the Murray-Darling Basin.
According to the GTRG:

“Each jurisdiction has legislation and policy that allows for the integrated management of
surface water and groundwater, but implementation of the integrated approach has not
occurred to-date.

The intended outcomes of the Cap on surface water diversions have been compromised as a
result of the increased groundwater use since 1993/94.

The jurisdictions have identified technical and planning investigations that will be undertaken
and investigations that are needed to reduce uncertainty, although the implementation plan for
these investigations has not been made clear.”
A later report by Land and Water Australia (LWA 2007) stated:

Australia has no agreed method for assessing the sustainable yield of groundwater.
In other words, after nearly a decade, no effective action had been taken, either by the Commission or
by State agencies to implement core CoAG policy (see the Prime Minister’s letter referenced above).
These policy elements are essential for the management of cumulative effects across the Basin, and
fundamental to any management program aimed at sustainable use of groundwater. This inaction
was, evidently, not restricted to the Basin, but appears as a major failure across the whole of Australia
(Nevill 2007b).
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
6
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
4. CASE STUDY 3: FARM DAMS
Ignore cumulative effects and farm dams don’t matter. One small farm dam won’t make much
difference to the streamflow at a catchment outlet, but the cumulative effect of a large number of farm
dams can have a dramatic impact. CSIRO, in their review of risks to River Murray flows, showed that
by 2020 if farm dams volumes continue to increase by 48% per 10-years as they have over the last
decade, then flows could be reduced by 3000 GL or 13% by 2020 (van Dijk, 2006). This impact would
be greater than all the other risks to water resources they assessed: climate change, bushfires,
afforestation, groundwater extraction and irrigation water management.
Farm dams catch water that would otherwise runoff. The effectiveness of each ML of dam storage in
reducing streamflows depends on climate (rainfall and evaporation) and water use – irrigation or stock
and domestic consumption. In dry areas (rainfall < 870 mm/year), where farm dams matter most, 1
ML of storage will reduce flows by about 1 ML per year (Lowe et al. 2005). Farm dam densities are
typically 4.6 ML/km2 in Victoria (median value) with 22% of catchments exceeding 10 ML/km 2 (Lowe et
al. 2005). There are similar farm dam densities in the Murray-Darling Basin. Densities greater than 10
ML/km2 are reported in the Namoi/Peel, Kiewa, Goulburn-Broken and South-Australian catchments
while, typically, densities are 1-10 ML/km2 in the Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Macquarie/Castlereagh,
Upper Murray, and Wimmera catchments. The total volume of farm dams in Victoria is about 870 GL
while for the Murray-Darling Basin the value is about 2,200 GL. For comparison, the volume of
Victorian farm dams is nearly 3 times the storage volume of the major Eppalock Dam and those in the
Murray-Darling Basin are equal to twice the storage volume of the Burrinjuck Dam in NSW.
Multiplying the number of farm dams by their impact gives the overall flow reduction. For example, on
average, farm dams reduce streamflows by around 4.5 ML/km 2 across Victoria or about 730 GL/year
(Lowe et al. 2005; Nathan et al. 2005). Flow reduction caused by farm dams in the Murray-Darling
Basin is about 1900 GL/year (van Dijk, 2006).
The impact on streamflows is greatest in catchments with the least runoff; those that have low rainfall
and high evaporation. Stream gauge information for Victoria shows that mean annual runoff in low
rainfall catchments is typically 40-80 ML/km2 (Nathan and Weinmann, 1993). Therefore, flow
reductions in these catchments are 5% to 10% of mean annual runoff if farm dam densities are at
average levels. Catchments where farm dams are known to have a major impact on flows include the
Marne River in South Australia (mean annual runoff 29 ML/km 2), Yass River in NSW (53 ML/km 2) and
Broadwater Creek in Queensland (55 ML/km 2) (Yu et al., 2002; Neal et al., 2002). In extreme cases,
for example Mitchell Creek in the Onkaparinga Catchment in South Australia, median flows are
reduced by 20% by farm dams but low flows (90th exceedence percentile) are reduced by 99%.
Overall, in impacted streams, dry spells occur more often, last longer, and occur later in the summer
season than they would naturally.
The volume of farm dam storage in the Murray-Darling Basin is increasing by about 4% per year i.e.
doubling every 17.5 years and there are few controls on this development. Victoria has the most
effective legislation yet 90% of farm dams are unlicensed (representing 88% of dam volume) (AWRa
2005). In most areas of Australia the number and volume of farm dams is unknown (or unreported)
and licensing laws are lax.
Controlling farm dams runs up against property rights. Who should own the rain that falls on private
land? Sections of the community in Victoria were strongly opposed to the licensing of farm dams and
the fact that water held in dams, to be used for commercial or irrigation purposes, had to be purchased
from existing licence holders. A Victorian politician gave voice to concerns held by many farmers:
“…it appears that the review committee intends that commercial and industrial users of
rainwater should be charged for the rainwater that falls on their properties and is stored in
dams. This is of massive concern to the agricultural producers, dairy farmers and other people
I have mentioned. It goes back to a longstanding tradition in our community. As I understand
it, rainwater belongs to the people upon whom the rain falls.” (Bowden 2001).
Controlling farm dams is going to require politicians to stare down these types of objections. So far, in
most of Australia, there has been little done to fix the problem. In the Australian Water Resources
Assessment 2000 (NLWRA 2001) the treatment of farm dams was noted as an information gap
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
7
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
because their impact on catchment yield was not considered. In the 2005 Water Resources
Assessment (AWR 2005) it was found that farm dams were still not accounted for in most water
management plans. In Queensland the extraction and storage of water into farm dams is not included
in the surface water cap for six of the capped water resources plan areas and in South Australia and
Victoria no entitlements are required for farm dams constructed for stock and domestic use (AWR
2005b).
There is also an interaction between a drying climate and the influence of farms. Farm dam
construction increases in response to drought and if climate change results in reduced rainfall and
increasing evaporation this will provide an imperative for farmers to build dams. But these dams will
spend more of their time empty (because the climate is dryer) so there will be storage space available
to catch more of the runoff when it does occur decreasing flows downstream (van Dijk, 2006). Even
with stable climate there is an ‘arms race’ effect with each new dam decreasing the security of supply
from existing dams so encouraging more dams to be constructed, or existing dams to be enlarged, to
compensate. The influence of farm dams is an example of the tyranny of small decisions and the
tragedy of the commons writ large.
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to deal with this ongoing problem and as a matter of urgency, cumulative effects within the
water resource industry must be taken much more seriously. Catchment management programs must
include at least five critical elements:

the need to manage cumulative effects through the establishment of strategic development caps
on a catchment basis must be formally recognised in water resource legislation and in NRM and
local government planning processes, and appropriate procedures must be established to set and
implement the caps in consultation with stakeholders. Caps here includes all forms of water
abstraction in a catchment, whether by irrigators, urban systems, farm dams or trees;

caps must be comprehensive and inclusive; stakeholder consultation programs must establish
caps covering: water extraction from both surface and groundwater, the construction of farm dams
(number and volume), agricultural drains, impediments to fish passage, and levee banks, the
development of intensive irrigation and agroforestry, the clearance of deep-rooted vegetation, and
activities (eg: stock access) capable of degrading riparian vegetation essential to the health of
river ecosystems;

adaptive management principles must be rigorously incorporated within catchment planning
processes (noting these form a part of Commonwealth NRM guidelines and bilateral agreements);

the caps on development must be set well ahead of the point where the catchment enters a
stressed or crisis situation; and

last but not least, the caps must be set in a precautionary way, entailing a reversal of the burden
of proof (Preston 2006).
Plans to protect catchment ecosystems cannot be effective without adequate knowledge of the relative
value and the current condition of these ecosystems. There is an urgent need to develop
comprehensive State inventories of inland aquatic ecosystems, incorporating both value and condition
data well as critical dependencies on ground and surface water flows. Such inventories are slowly
developing across Australia, but could benefit greatly by the development of a national framework
supported by Commonwealth funding. Moves towards this end are again moving far too slowly.
Finally, there are many acts of parliament, regulations and policies that contain principles that, if
translated into practice, would go a long way towards dealing with the issues of cumulative impacts we
have identified in this paper.
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
8
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
6. REFERENCES
AWR (2005a) Australian Water Resources 2005: Intercepting activities. National Water Commission.
http://www.water.gov.au/WaterAvailability/Whatisourtotalwaterresource/Interceptingactivities/index.asp
x?Menu=Level1_3_1_8#FarmDams
AWR (2005b) Australian Water Resources 2005: A baseline assessment of water resources for the
National Water Initiative, key findings of level 1 assessment. National Water Commission.
Bowden, RH (2001) Water: farm dams. Legislative Council of Victoria, Adjournment 21 March 2001,
Member for the South Eastern Province; p. 101.
DWLBC Report 2002/22, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity, Adelaide.
Evans, R. (2007) The impact of groundwater use on Australia's Rivers, Land & Water Australia,
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM).
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, vol. 162, pp. 1243-8.
Lowe, L., Nathan, R. and Morden, R. (2005) Australian Journal of Water Resources 9(1): 13-26.
LWA Land and Water Australia (2007) The impact of groundwater use on Australia's rivers: exploring
technical, management and policy challenges, LWA, Canberra.
Nathan, R. J. and Weinmann, P. E. (1993) Low flow atlas for Victorian streams. Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources.
Nathan, R.J., Lowe, L, Morden, R., Lett, R., and Griffith, H (2005) Developments in techniques for the
assessment of farm dam impacts on streamflows. Engineers Australia, 29th Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, 21 - 23 February 2005, Canberra .
Neal, B., Nathan, R. J., Schreider, S., Jakeman, A. J. (2002) Identifying the separate impact of farm
dams and land use changes on catchment yield. Australian Journal of Water Resources 5(2): 165176.
Nevill, J (2007a) Policy without action: groundwater reform in the Murray-Darling Basin,
OnlyOnePlanet Australia, viewed November 24 2007,
<http://www.ids.org.au/~cnevill/FW_MDB_groundwaterReform.doc>.
Nevill, J (2007b) Australian progress in conjunctive water management, OnlyOnePlanet Australia,
viewed 14 December 2007,
<http://www.ids.org.au/~cnevill/FW_progressConjunctiveWaterManagement.doc>.
NLWRA (2001) National Land and Water Resources Audit. Australian Water Resources Assessment
2000. Commonwealth of Australia.
Odum, W (1982) Environmental degradation and the tyranny of small decisions. Bioscience, vol. 32,
no. 9, pp. 728-9.
Peel MC, Watson FGR & Vertessy RA, 2002, Modelling of Low Flows in the North Esk River Using the
Macaque Model. Report prepared for Launceston City Council. 52pp. (Available for download at
http://www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au/~mpeel/Publications.html )
Preston (2006) Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council, New South Wales Land and
Environment Court, Justice CJ Preston, NSWLEC 133, 24 March 2006.
Ransome SW, (1983) Report on a Proposed Land Use Determination for the Gellibrand River
Catchment, Soil Conservation Authority, Kew.
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
9
of 9
Cumulative Impacts
Finlayson
SKM Sinclair Knight Metz (2006) Towards a national framework for managing the impacts of
groundwater and surface water interaction in Australia, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry Australia, Armadale Melbourne.
Tan, P-L (2000) 'Conflict over water resources in Queensland: all eyes on the Lower Balonne',
Environment and Planning Law Journal, vol. 17, pp. 545-68.
Teoh, Kim. (2003) Estimating the impact of current farm dams development on the surface water
resources of the Onkaparinga River catchment, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation, Adelaide.
Van Dijk, A., Evens, R., Hairsine, P., Khan, S., Nathan, R., Paydar, Z., Viney, N. and Zhang, L. (2006)
Risks to the shared water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. MDBC Publication 22/06. MurrayDarling Basin Commission, Canberra.
Yu, S., Jakeman, A. J., Letcher, R. A., Nathan, R. J., Neal, B. P., and Beavis, S. G. (2002) Detecting
changes in streamflow response to changes in non-climatic catchment conditions: farm dam
development in the Murray-Darling basin, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 262:84-98.
WATER DOWN UNDER 2008 Finlayson, Nevill, Ladson
10
of 9