RIPARIAN RIGHTS Flashcards
Where is water defined?
Schedule 4 of the Water Act
Who controls water in Queensland?
s19 of the Water Act and s13A(4) indicates that THE STATE has the right to use, flow and control all water in Queensland.
Where is watercourse defined?
s5 of the Water Act 2000
When can a person take water?
S20 Water Act - a person can take water for domestic purposes or for watering stock.
Where are the boundaries for non tidal watercourses?
s99(1) and s100 - it is the natural feature approximating the boundary show on the current survey plan
Where are the boundaries for non-tidal lakes?
The boundary will be the outermost extent of the bed and banks of the lake
What are state rights in relation to lake or watercourse?
They own land that is on the lake or watercourse side of the relevant boundary and any fixed right line tidal boundary under s8 and 9 of the Land Act
Where is a Non-tidal boundary (watercourse) defined?
s99 and s100 of Survey Mapping Infrastructure Act.
What is the doctrine of Accretion?
If one boundary of land is a river or the sea or the lake, and there is GRADUAL AND IMPERCEPTIBLE shifting of the river or shoreline and this is caused by the operation of NATURAL CAUSES, then this results in a corresponding shift in the boundary of land.
What are the requirements for the doctrine of accretion?
- Must be a gradual and imperceptible change;
2. Must be of natural causes not human intervention.
What are the cases related to the doctrine of accretion?
- Attorney General v John Holt
- Verrall v Nott
- Southern centre of Theosophy v South Australia
Attorney General v John Holt
UK case.
HOlt owned land which was bounded by the sea. He took reformation works which involved putting up a solid retaining wall to protect land from erosion.
This caused a buildup of land over 50 years.
The privy Council recognised the doctrine of accretion. They accepted this was a doctrine, but held in this case it did not apply because the buildup was caused deliberately, so the Crown claimed the build up of the land
Verrall v Nott
The Court of NSW cite the doctrine of accretion applies.
In this case, human action was building of a rubble wall. Accretion was unintentionally caused by that wall.
Court held: doctrine applied because the works carried out, despite being manmade, were not with the intention to get land.
Southern Centre of Theosophy v South Australia
This case, the crown granted lease in 1911. One of the boundaries corresponded with the boundary of the lake. This was marked in 1879.
This was the high water mark of the lake.
When the action was commenced in 1975, there was an additional 20 acres of land.
There were two causes:
- Navigation channel which cut the land, caused additional land to be added to the lease
- deposit of soil and sand by drift from nearby sand dunes
Held:
1. Doctrine of accretion applies to leased land.
Doctrine could apply to an increase if it occurred naturally which it did.
2. Furthermore, the increase was gradual and imperceptible.
In this case, allowed to keep land.
