A tale of two rivers: rivers in Australia's tropical north have recently become the focus of much discussion following Prime Minister John Howard's $10 billion dollar water reform. But what's really going on with rivers in the North? Justin McCaul looks at the current threats facing two most pristine of rivers.

WHEN THE WATER REFORM PLAN was announced in January, the Prime Minister said the funding would include the establishment of a taskforce to assess water resources in northern Australia, a region he says needs to play a bigger role in helping ease pressure off the water crisis affecting southern Australia.

The head of the taskforce, Federal Senator Bill Heffernan, is already predicting a big increase in agricultural development across the region. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is also talking up the huge potential northern Australia's water resources could play in a new development frontier stretching from far north Queensland to north-west Western Australia.

Recent events pertaining to two of northern Australia's relatively pristine tropical rivers provides a glimpse of what the future might hold if large scale development is allowed to overrun community concerns and the principles of environmental sustainability.

McArthur River

In May this year, the Northern Territory Government disgracefully ignored the rights of Indigenous peoples and judicial process by passing legislation to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that found the NT Government acted illegally in approving open cut mining at one of the largest zinc deposits in the world near Borroloola in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

On April 30 this year the Northern Territory Supreme Court ruled that the October 2006 approval granted to Xstrata-owned McArthur River Mining (MRM) by the NT Government to move from underground mining to open cut mining was illegal. The decision was hailed as a victory for both the environment and Indigenous people's rights.

Yet days later on May 3, NT Chief Minister Clare Martin rushed retrospective legislation through parliament to validate the expansion and make null and void the court's decision. This action attracted strong criticism from Traditional Owners and conservation groups. Even three members of Clare Martin's cabinet 'crossed the floor' to oppose the decision.

The controversy over the mine expansion began in late 2005 when MRM--in a highly risky feat of environmental engineering--planned to divert a 5.5km section of the McArthur River. The Environment Centre of the Northern Territory (ECNT) said the mine would have a much larger environmental 'footprint' than the current operation leading to potentially larger water management and waste disposal problems. ACF wrote to Chief Minister Martin in February 2006 expressing our concerns about the environmental impacts of such a plan. We also strongly supported the Yanyuwa people, one of the area's Traditional Owners, who feared heavy metal contamination of the river by an open cut operation and its impacts on dugong and marine turtle habitats at the mouth of the river.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by MRM in March 2006 was rejected by both the NT Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minister for Mines. But the company was later allowed to submit a Public Environmental Report (PER) for EPA assessment addressing nine issues of concern raised in the EIS. This was accepted and the Federal Environment Minister then also endorsed the proposal and approval was finally granted in October 2006.

Despite the setback of the retrospective legislation, Traditional Owners have also lodged an appeal in the Federal Court in Darwin to challenge the approval granted by the Commonwealth Environment Minister on this matter.

Legal commentators say this issue has severely trampled the rights of the Indigenous people. For ACF and the ECNT this decision could set a dire precedent for tropical rivers in northern Australia as it would seem development such as mining must proceed at the expense of people and the environment.

Fitzroy River

On a recent visit to the Kimberley in April, I spent three days on the mighty Fitzroy River in Western Australia. Environs Kimberley Freshwater Campaigner, Dr Gary Scott, who is funded by ACE accompanied me and a team of Indigenous rangers from the community of Jarlmadangah adjacent to the Fitzroy River, to discuss ways conservation and Indigenous groups can work together to ensure the long term protection and sustainable use of the river.

The visit was timely as on the day of our departure, WA Opposition Leader Paul Omodei tried to revive plans to build a canal to pipe water 2000km south to Perth as a solution to that city's water shortages. This is despite a $5m independent review by the WA Government completed in March 2006 which found the idea "at least five times more costly than other available options and offers no significant advantages to the development of the State".

Our group also visited the failed Camballin irrigation area. This project received massive government and private sector support in the 1960s in a bid to bring irrigated agriculture to the west Kimberley region. But flooding, birds, insects and heavy weed infestation as well as problems such as the remoteness of the area, lack of experience and poor planning ensured the project was unviable. Two senior Aboriginal men from Jarlmadangah, who we later spoke with, are strongly opposed to such development.

Many of the problems that plagued the Camballin project remain relevant today. Yet only days after our visit Senator Bill Heffernan spoke at the Kimberley Economic Forum in Broome to industry representatives who are supportive of damming the Fitzroy River for irrigated agriculture. If this idea is attempted again, it will be against the wishes of many Aboriginal Traditional Owners along the Fitzroy River.

It will certainly be against the wishes of conservation groups such as ACF who fear northern Australia's tropical rivers could be open to exploitation and unsustainable use that has created the crisis in southern Australia.