RIVER IMPROVEMENT ACT

1948
The following statement gives a summary of the provisions of the River Improvement Act 1948
which came into operation on the 1st January, 1949, and indicates the procedure to be adopted
by local authorities and landholders who wish to take advantage of the legislation for river
improvement.
It has long been known that many of the rivers and streams of Victoria are în urgent need of
improvement. Some have become choked by fallen trees or by willows or other growing plants,
so that their channels have lost much of their capacity, and the lands through which they flow
have suffered from floods or waterlogging. Others are eroding their banks, so that, throughout
the State, many thousands of acres of good land have been destroyed. Some rivers have in
places changed course altogether.
The damage caused by floods and erosion has already cost a huge sum—probably millions of pounds
—and it is growing every year; but so far there has not been any systematic and comprehensive plan for
improving and maintaining streams.
Works have certainly been carried out from time to time to improve sections of various rivers,
and such works have usually been successful, for a while at least. Some of these works were
done by the Public Works Department, some by the State Rivers and Water Supply
Commission, and some by municipal councils and other public bodies.
It has not, however, been the duty of any particular body to see that the streams of Victoria
outside the metropolitan area were maintained in good order. The State Rivers and Water
Supply Commission (which will hereafter be called the Commission) like various other bodies,
has power to do works on streams; but has never been given any regular funds for stream
improvement. From time to time
various Shire Councils have undertaken stream improvement operations; and some of them
have done excellent work. As a rule, however, works done by councils have been for the
protection of local public works or private properties, and have not been part of a systematic
improvement of a stream as a whole.
There is thus widespread need for the organization of a system of control and improvement of
rivers and streams which will enable them to be put in good order and kept so. The River
Improvement Act forms the basis for this.
Need for Unified Control of a River.
Where works are undertaken for the improvement of a river, it is desirable that they should be
planned as a whole, so that the benefit from them shall be spread as evenly as possible right
along the stream.
There is some analogy between rivers and roads. It is not much use having a first class bitumen road
half of the way, if the rest is only mud; local trastic may benefit from the bitumen, but through traffic is still
held up by the mud.
The flow of a river is usually all “through traffic "; and while works for the local protection of lands may
give local benefit, this benefit may not extend very far up or downstream. Indeed, extensive works of
drainage or of channel-clearing on the upper part of a stream may give rise to fears, on the part of
landholders downstream, that their flooding problems are being intensified thereby. Many cases have
occurred where proposed local improvements have been opposed, or even held up, on these grounds.
One exception to the remarks above, about the extent of the benefit of local works, is the case where a
stream is eroding badly in one place and silting lower down. Here the checking of the erosion will result in
a reduction of the siltation. If, however, the authority which is endeavouring to cope with the silted stream
cannot get action taken to check the erosion, it is badly handicapped.
The work of improvement should as far as possible be planned so that no increase of
injurious flooding, erosion, or siltation should be caused anywhere. To effect this, it is usually
desirable that the whole o! the works on a stream should be under one authority.
Need for Continuity of Control.
River improvement works need continuity of effort and control. The body which carries
them out should be able to look ahead and plan ahead, knowing that funds will be
available to complete the work commenced,
 Some years ago, for example, when snagging was being done to relieve
unemployment, some of the willows choking one river were poisoned, so that they could
be removed more easily after they were dead. For various reasons, however, the supply
of funds was interrupted, and the dead willows had to be left standing. Many have since
fallen and helped to block the very stream the clearing of which their killing was
intended to facilitate.
Again, one of the cheapest and most effective methods of preventing erosion on streams is
the development of a good vegetative cover on the banks, whether it be trees, shrubs or strong-
rooting grasses. In fact, unless in special locations, like towns where it is vital that no risk at all
be taken of further erosion, any engineering works used in erosion control may be regarded
simply as means to check erosion and permit this vegetative cover to be effectively established.
This, however, may naturally take some time and may need continuous care for some years.
The great variation in flow of our Victorian streams, moreover, often makes it difficult to anticipate
definitely the effect of river works. When any works of improvement are carried out, therefore, it is
necessary to watch the stream carefully for some time, to detect and curb any adverse features which
may arise, or to remedy the effects of any flood larger than the flow for which the works were designed,
Vital Importance of Maintenance.
It is rare that any work of river improvement can be planned so well and carried out so
thoroughly that no more need be done to it. A river channel may be snagged and the erosion in
it checked, to the satisfaction of all concerned; but left to itself, the river will usually start to go
wrong again. Trees will fall in, willows grow in the wrong place, floods or human foolishness
make breaks in the banks where erosion develops; and before many years are out, the work will
have to be done again.
This has been shown time after time. About ten years ago, for instance, sections of
various streams were snagged, the money being provided from Unemployment Relief
Funds. Since then, on many of these snagged sections little or no further work has been
done to assure that they were kept clear. This was to some extent, probably, due to
wartime shortages of labour and machines; but for the most part it was because nobody
seems to have felt it their business to keep the streams clear—not even the landholders
who received the most benefit from the original work. As a result, these streams arę
rapidly becoming choked again, and the value of the money spent has largely been lost.
i
Rating of Lands Benefited.
The improvement of Victoria’s rivers is going to cost, in the
aggregate, a large sum of money, which will be largely wasted unless
the work, once done, is properly maintained.
Many landholders have already shown their willingness to help in keeping the streams in
good order, and have contributed financially and otherwise to this work. Others, however, have
not; and if maintenance is left to voluntary effort, the result will be either that the willing ones
may have to bear all the expense—which would not be very encouraging for them—or else they
would maintain their own sections and the unwilling landholders would neglect theirs; in which
case the willing ones might still suffer from the effects of the work left undone.
The fairest way, then, is for one authority to have the power and responsibility of ensuring that all
necessary maintenance is done on a stream, and for all landholders who benefit to have to contribute
towards the cost. This can be ensured by the rating of lands benefited by the works.
River Improvement Districts and Awthorities.
To meet the above requirements, the River Improvement Act provides for the formation of
River Improvement Districts, each under the control of an authority; and it also provides for the
levying of a rate on all lands lying within the district and benefited by the river improvement
works.
Definitions.
It may be advantageous here to explain what is meant by certain terms when they are used in
the Act and also in this statement.
“River" includes any river, stream, creek or watercourse, and any lake or artificial storage
along any river, stream, creek or Watercourse.
“River improvement authority” means the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission
or any River Improvement Trust.
“River improvement Trust” means any river improvement Trust constituted
under this Act and, in this statement, includes any drainage Trust constituted
under this Act.
“River Improvement Works” includes any of the following:—
(a) clearing and removing obstructions from the bed and
banks of a river;

(b) widening, deepening, straightening, diverting, or otherwise

improving a river;

(c) prevention of and defence against flooding by river waters;

5

(d) making new courses or outfalls for a river, defining and constructing the course of a river
through a swamp, or otherwise draining land;
(e) preventing or minimizing erosion of the bed or banks of
a river;

(f) erecting any weir or any bank, groyne, dam, or other

defence against river waters;

(g) cleansing a river or preventing or minimizing its pollution:

(h) planting, sowing, and maintaining any trees, shrubs, plants, or grasses in connection with
river improvement works;
(i) any other works for general or any specific improvement
Of a river.
Management of Districts,
There are several ways in which river improvement districts could be managed—by the
Commission direct, by specially constituted local bodies or trusts, or by the municipalities. There
is a wide range of difference in conditions along the various rivers of Victoria, so that it is not
wise to apply any hard and fast rule to all alike.
It has sometimes been contended that river improvement work should be under the management of the
municipal councils. A serious difficulty about this proposal is that so many rivers run through several
shires; the Ovens, for example, runs through six, and most important rivers pass through or by two or
more. On the Latrobe, where a comprehensive snagging plan was carried out some ten years ago from
Unemployment Relief funds, four Drainage Areas were formed—one under the control of each Shire
Council. The results have not been altogether satisfactory, and the landholders have asked for unified
control.
Rivers, again, often form a boundary between two Shires; and in such a case it would obviously be
invidious for two Shire Councils each to be responsible for the same length of river, while if only one were
responsible, the landholders in the other Shire would not have any say in the control.
Especially for the larger districts, and for rivers which run through several Shires, it is usually
desirable to have river innprovement affairs under the control of one single special authority for
each Stream.
One way of achieving this would be to create river districts under. the direct control of the
Commission. There is no insuperable objection to this; and in some cases it may prove the best
solution.
5

(d) making new courses or outfalls for a river, defining and constructing the course of a river through a
swamp, or otherwise draining land;
(e) preventing or minimizing erosion of the bed or banks of
a river;
(f) erecting any weir or any bank, groyne, dam, or other
defence against river waters;
(g) cleansing a river or preventing or minimizing its pollution:
(h) planting, sowing, and maintaining any trees, shrubs, plants, or grasses in connection with
river improvement works;
(i) any other works for general or any specific improvement
of a river.

Management of Districts.
There are several ways in which river improvement districts could be managed—by the
Commission direct, by specially constituted local bodies or trusts, or by the municipalities. There
is a wide range of difference in conditions along the various rivers of Victoria, so that it is not
wise to apply any hard and fast rule to all alike.
It has sometimes been contended that river improvement work should be under the management of the
municipal councils. A serious difficulty about this proposal is that so many rivers run through several
shires; the Ovens, for example, runs through six, and most important rivers pass through or by two or
more. On the Latrobe, where a contprehensive snagging plan was carried out some ten years ago from
Unemployment Relief funds, four Drainage Areas were formed—one under the control of each Shire
Council. The results have not been altogether satisfactory, and the landholders have asked for unified
control.
Rivers, again, often form a boundary between two Shires; and in such a case it would obviously be
invidious for two Shire Councils each to be responsible for the same length of river, while if only one were
responsible, the landholders in the other Shire would not have any say in the control.
Especially for the larger districts, and for rivers which run through several Shires, it is usually
desirable to have river in provement affairs under the control of one single special authority for
each Stream.
One way of achieving this would be to create river districts under. the direct control of the
Commission. There is no insuperable objection to this; and in some cases it may prove the best
solution.