Report 8: 2018

Management of Salinity

There is little coordination of efforts to manage dryland salinity

Salinity is spread unevenly across the landscape, resulting in varying impacts. Addressing it is a shared responsibility and experience to date indicates that effectiveness relies on coordinated action. It also relies on all landholders taking appropriate action to protect their land, even those who aren’t directly affected by salinity but are contributing to altered hydrology and/or salinity on another property.

There is currently little coordinated management across government agencies, industry, land holders and the community. As a result, efforts to manage dryland salinity are unlikely to achieve any landscape wide improvement.

The management of dryland salinity lacks strategic direction

The strategic management and planning framework established in the late 1990s and early 2000s has not been completed. The Salinity Action Plan and the State Salinity Strategy are both dormant and are now outdated. The absence of clearly defined outcomes increases the risk that limited funding is not spent efficiently.

For example, it is not clear how effective the salinity initiatives that were part of the $560 million investment of state and federal funds between 2003 and 2008 were, because agencies have not continued to monitor and evaluate outcomes.

There are currently no goals and targets for reducing water tables or replanting deep-rooted species. Decisions to protect land are left to individual landholders without any level of government regulation or enforcement. Relying on landholders to make choices about addressing salinity based on their own private benefit can result in landholders either acting alone, or not at all.

This is a significant change to the management approach adopted in the 1990s and 2000s which considered that Government had a fundamental responsibility to protect public assets, assist in the protection of private assets and provide on-going funding.

Mechanisms exist to help more collaborative approaches, such as the functions of the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation, the Soil and Land Conservation Council, and Land Conservation District Committees. But these are not used, which increases the risk that some landowners will take appropriate actions while others will not. Inaction by a landowner can have a significant impact on their neighbours. Although DPIRD advises that it does investigate complaints, the risk of inaction remains because it is not effectively using its legislative powers to prevent land degradation.

We would have expected a framework and strategic plan that is up to date and that incorporates a state approach to the management of dryland salinity. The plan should define the role of Government, agencies, stakeholder, landholder and community in addressing dryland salinity. Elements of this were in place in the early 2000s but are no longer in operation. At the ground level, government support for community groups has been reducing. Much of the Natural Resource Management funding tends to be federal funding, often tied to federal priorities that differ from State and local land care priorities.

Agencies have protected some individual assets but overall are not meeting wider legislated responsibilities

In the absence of a coordinated statewide strategy, DBCA and DWER have focused on protecting individual, high value assets in local areas. This has resulted in some success for those assets. However, they are not meeting wider legislated responsibilities to prevent and mitigate land degradation, and protect water resources and biodiversity throughout the South West.

Agencies advise that they direct investment to priority assets. The Salinity Investment Framework reports (Phase I and II) are not Government policy but provides guidance for agencies to use when deciding to invest public funds. The Phase I report was prepared by the Department of Environment in 2003, and the Phase II report by the Natural Resource Management Council of Western Australia in 2006.

DPIRD

DPIRD has responsibilities under the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 (the Act) to prevent and mitigate land degradation, promote soil conservation and encourage and educate landholders but does little to actively manage salinity. On the ground activities have reduced and landholders such as farmers and industry are increasingly required to fund activities that are now seen by Government as having a largely private benefit.

DPIRD has information on dryland salinity publically available on its website including explanation of the science of dryland salinity, general information about the extent, potential spread and impact. There is also information about management options available for landholders.

The Act provides for the appointment of a Soil and Land Commissioner and the establishment of Land Conservation District Committees (LCDCs). The committees can manage projects and follow direction from and provide assistance to the Commissioner. The LCDCs were established in 1988, and perform authorised functions within a land conservation district relating to land degradation and soil conservation. Membership and sustainability of many groups is an on-going issue with only 20 committees remaining in operation in the South West agricultural region. Previously there were just over 140 authorised and active LCDCs.

Under the Act the general functions of the Commissioner include the prevention and mitigation of land degradation, and the promotion, encouragement and education of landholders and the public in soil conservation. The Commissioner can also investigate complaints about land management causing land degradation and issue soil conservation notices to landholders.

DPIRD is not effectively using all its legislative powers to prevent land degradation. Measures to prevent land degradation are mostly reactive and reliant on applications for drainage or complaints from the public.

Since 2008, the Commissioner has investigated 303 land degradation complaints, of which 2 were directly related to salinity, and according to the Commissioner, 39 related to non-notified drainage where salinity was most likely to be the issue. Although there are avenues for prosecution DPIRD’s compliance and enforcement policy does not favour this approach. We are not aware of any landholder being prosecuted for failing to mitigate land degradation.

With up to 2 million hectares affected by salinity, and the problem predicted to get worse, we would expect a more proactive approach to the prevention and mitigation of land degradation.

DBCA and DWER

DBCA and DWER have wide responsibilities to protect and conserve the natural environment and manage water resources. They advise that given the wide extent of dryland salinity and limited resources they have prioritised which assets they protect. While they have had some success with those assets, native flora and fauna are still at significant risk and other water resources have become more saline.

DBCA has overall responsibility for the State’s biodiversity assets, both within and outside the reserves system. Dryland salinity has had a significant impact on biodiversity assets particularly wetland areas which are susceptible to altered hydrology. The Department estimated in 2002, that 850 species of plants and animals are threatened with regional or global extinction due to salinity. Rising water tables have resulted in waterways and wetlands being far wetter than they have ever been and often the salinity level has significantly risen. Many native species are not able to survive in wetter and more saline environments.

DBCA’s responsibilities are derived primarily from the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984, Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. The Salinity Action Plan, released in 1996 identified 6 key high diversity value wetlands that needed to be protected under a Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment Program; the Department’s key salinity management program. All 6 were adversely affected by altered hydrology with increasing salinity and groundwater levels. They were:

  • Buntine-Marchagee
  • Drummond
  • Lake Bryde
  • Lake Warden
  • Muir-Unicup
  • Toolibin Lake.

In 2002, the Government committed to increasing the number of wetland recovery catchments to 25, however this never happened. DBCA has advised that currently recovery work continues in 2 of the catchments (Toolibin Lake (see case example below) and Lake Bryde) and recovery work in a limited capacity continues at Lake Warden and Muir-Unicup.

In December 2016, DBCA released its results of the South West Wetlands Monitoring Program for the period 1977-2015. This reported water levels and salinity data for 105 monitored wetlands. Most of the wetlands are within National Parks or Nature Reserves, including some within the wetlands prioritised under the Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment Program. DBCA advised this program is also reducing making the trend data less informative.

Case example - Toolibin Lake

DWER has broad responsibility for the State’s water resources, including ground and surface water. It manages the State’s waterways; streams, rivers and estuaries. Principal legislation administered includes Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, Water Services Act 2012 and the Waterways Conservation Act 1976.

The Salinity Action Plan (1996) and the State Salinity Strategy (2000) identified 5 key potable water supplies in the South West as Water Resource Recovery Catchments. All 5 were declared water resource catchments under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 and had increasing salinity levels. Salinity situation assessments were completed for the catchments to understand where and why the rivers were becoming marginal or brackish. A range of actions were taken across the catchments to prevent and contain the salinity. Some areas of cleared land were revegetated, some areas fenced and engineering trials undertaken to divert the flow of saline water away from water storage areas. These catchments are:

  • Helena River (Mundaring Weir)
  • Collie River (Wellington Dam)
  • Warren River
  • Kent River
  • Denmark River.

DWER advised that:

  • salinity levels in the Helena and Denmark Rivers have reduced to drinking water target levels
  • interventions in the Collie River catchment such as tree planting are ongoing as the salinity in the Wellington Dam continues to exceed target levels and is of marginal quality for irrigated agriculture
  • native vegetation levels in the Warren River catchment are maintained to mitigate any further increases in salinity levels within the catchment
  • there is no work done in the Kent River because there is no demand for the water and the scale of intervention is too large.

The agency also advised that it provided information for the current Wellington Dam proposal to use treated water to support irrigated agriculture.

Case example - Denmark River

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top