Township of Twisted Water Boundary - Assignment Example

Township of Twisted Water Boundary PART 1: FORMAL SUBMISSION UNDER THE BOUNDARIES ACT A water boundary can be defined as the land adjoining water bodies: rivers (including streams), lakes, and sea (Ontario: Hudson Bay and James Bay). It can also be defined as dry land in contact with water. SURVEYOR’S REPORT The Surveyor’s Report describes the method used to determine the boundary and it includes, as appropriate: • Basis and method of determining the location of the MHWM or bank. • Details of any differences between the observed location of the present MHWM or bank and previous definition/s. Provide considered qualified reasons for the difference (e.g. erosion / accretion / error in prior survey, flood or reclamation). • Position of all improvements relative to boundary as shown on plan. • Information and/or statutory declarations from eye witnesses (e.g. long term residents). • Professional Advice or evidence (e.g. land / estuary studies, geotechnical evidence, and soil/bore-hole samples). • Description of the land and land use (e.g. whether natural, developed or affected by man). • Provide photographs – current and historical. Terrestrial and aerial if appropriate with boundary superimposed. • Provide (a) survey geometry file (dwg or dxf); (b) aerial images with present and previous survey overlays. Figure 1: Water boundary allocation for lot 3. This boundary allocation is in accordance with the rights of riparian rights owners who are entitled to have water flow to their land in the manner in which it has been accustomed to flow. THE APPROACH TO SETTING ALLOCATION LIMITS Previous approach The previous allocation limits were set by the department’s predecessor, the Water and Rivers Commission. The process used and the allocation limits chosen were published in managing the groundwater resources of the Township of Twisted groundwater management strategy. To decide on the allocation limits, results from an earlier groundwater model (GRFAMOD, Dodson 2001) and the information gathered from the environmental water requirements assessments (SMEC 2001), was used. The GASFAMS groundwater model estimated the recharge, through flow, discharge and storage characteristics of the flow system. The groundwater model simulated a number of recharge scenarios to determine how much water could be sustainably abstracted from the system. Current approach The department follows a standard planning process when developing an allocation plan. A component of this process is setting allocation limits and the management regime. For the Township of Twisted area we set allocation limits in accordance with this process. The yield estimate tells us how much water can be taken from a resource for use and what volume or flow is needed to maintain the ecological and social values, within and downstream of the resource. We also consider management considerations in our decision, such as reliability of supply, current use, future demand and the effects of water abstraction and use on water quality. The department applied this process to the Township of Twisted alluvial aquifer to determine the allocation limits. Definition of an allocation limit An allocation limit is the annual volume of water set aside for consumptive use from a water resource. This includes the water available for licensing and the water set aside for uses exempt from licensing, such as stock and domestic. For administrative purposes, the allocation limit is divided into three groups of components: Licensable components (water available for licensing or currently licensed public water supply) Reserves (including reserves for future public water supply) Components which are not licensable (including water for exempt use). There was no exempt stock and domestic water use within the plan area when this plan was being prepared. Working with water users and other stakeholders Involving the community is an important part of the planning process. Extensive consultation should be done to ensure setting the right management approach for the area. Particularly important is the need to build on the historical knowledge held by the community, particularly growers. This should be done to ensure the decisions made throughout the planning process are supported by the community, representative organisations and other regulatory agencies and would enable effective management of the system. Community involvement should be twofold: •Advisory Committee involvement in developing the earlier report and in managing the groundwater resources. Continued use of their input during the development of the plan should be primary. • Broader on-going consultation, including workshops. DEFINING THE MANAGEMENT APPROACH How did were the local licensing rules set? The department uses allocation limits to manage the water resources in the plan area at a resource scale to protect the resource. Due to the high variability in the system and the high level of use there is a need to manage some aspects at an individual licence scale through local licensing rules. The horticultural industry and the department already have rules in place to manage water abstraction and use in the plan area. The department refined and formalised the local rules for managing the area in managing the groundwater resources. Community feedback and improved knowledge of the system has allowed us to build on these local rules. Local rules complement the department’s state-wide strategic and operational policies. Local licensing rules have been proposed to manage the following aspects: water accounting year metering maximum monthly draw limit unrestricted groundwater pumping periods licence conditions on bore construction managing water quality water contamination groundwater-dependent ecosystems using the public water supply reserve for other purposes Temporary increase to allocation limit in a subarea. PART 2: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPLES THE “FLOODING RIGHT”: IS IT RIPARIAN? Harnessing of hydraulic power for use to power machinery to grind grain or saw logs or even generate electricity depends on the building of a dam across a river. By this, the water could be backed up, retained and stored for a period of time for powering the machinery. Unfortunately this meant flooding of the lands upstream from the dam site. A dam here is taken to constitute a channel or diversion for control and regulation of water and any building structure or temporary installation necessary. A License of Occupation may in fact be issued to a mill or other utility which uses the waterpower to generate further benefits. If such a License of Occupation is worded so as to allow the mill to raise the water to a stipulated elevation, the legal boundary of that "flooding right" would remain the water’s edge since the change would be relatively sudden hence invalidating the right of accretion. The placement of a dam on a watercourse is in direct contradiction of common law riparian rights and therefore the flooding right is not riparian in nature. Operating a mill is considered an extraordinary use of the water which results in periodical interruption of the flow of water downstream. The owner is therefore liable despite the fact that the action is not unreasonable. This is because the owner in this case is not a riparian owner. STUDY QUESTIONS 1. What is a “water lot”? A water lot refers to a section of the bed of a body of water that does not include the adjacent land. Ownership is by patent. The boundary of a water lot with adjacent land is the water line and thus such a boundary is subject to accretion. 2. Does the position of Shore Road Allowance move? The position of a Shore Road Allowance laid out in an original township survey does move. This is the case when there is significant change in the controlled or normal high water mark. It will however not be approved if the closure is deemed: i) to have a negative impact on neighbouring owners of land; or ii) other land owners may be deprived of the sole vehicular access to their property; or iii) closure will result in conflicts with Township Official Plan policies, by-law regulations or procedures 3. Is a high water mark an ascertainable line? It is considered to be an ascertainable boundary on the ground which is capable of being marked. It is retraced by consideration of the nature of the “mark” in terms of both vegetation and soil. 4. Can a natural boundary of a riparian property ever lose its ambulatory character? No it cannot. An ambulatory natural boundary may well fluctuate but meaning remain constant. This is because of the accretion right of a riparian owner which means that the privilege at common law of being entitled to dry land formed in front of a dry land parcel belongs to the riparian owner. 5. What is the default position, at common law, of the extent of an owner’s title to a riparian parcel of land vis-à-vis the body of water? The default position at common law can best be stated as the common law presumption of a grant of land fronting on a body of water being a grant to the centre line of a river or point in a lake. 6. Why advocate a boundary for the beds of navigable bodies of water at the high water mark? The high water mark was considered a more consistent boundary than the constantly varying water’s edge. The underlying policy reason for the change in the Beds of Navigable Waters Act in 1940 was to incorporate new definitions for both “bed” and “high water” mark. The change also authorized the Minister of Lands and Forests to fix the high water mark of any navigable body of water and such a decision was to be considered “final and conclusive”. 7. Give three examples of a natural boundary that is on dry land and does not involve water i) Mountain Ranges ii) Deserts iii) Dense natural forests 8. Does the artificial change in level of a body of water ever affect the location of a natural boundary? Artificial change in water level does not affect the location of the natural boundary but instead creates an artificial one. Removal of the structure or feature set to increase the water level would return it to the original natural boundary. 9. When accretion takes place in front of two properties, what is the role of a land surveyor when conducting a survey of the boundary between the accreted portions in front of the two properties: laying out for first time, or retracing an existing boundary? Retracing an existing boundary is the best way to go since this clarifies the previous extent of contact with water thereby helping to establish the property boundaries once again. Reference List Allen, A.D. (1972), Results of Investigation into groundwater resources along Lower Gascoyne River for Carnarvon irrigation and town water supplies. record 1972/9, Geological Survey of Western Australia, Perth. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010). Regional population growth, Australia, 2008-09. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Carnarvon Water Allocation Advisory Committee (CWAAC) (1998) Rules of the river. Carnarvon Water allocation Advisory Committee. Draft. Dodson, W. J. (2001), Basin A water quality review, Lower Gascoyne River, Hydrogeological report 192. Water and Rivers Commission, Perth. Gronewold A. D., Clites, A. H., Smith J. P., and Hunter, T. S., A dynamic graphical interface for visualizing projected, measured, and reconstructed surface water elevations on the earth's largest lakes, Environmental Modelling & Software, Volume 49, November 2013, Pages 34–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.07.003 Bureau of Meteorology (1998). Gascoyne Murchison climate survey. Bureau of Meteorology. Read More