Thread: Beautiful creek wrecked

In QLD the dividing fences and boundary act, is the go to legislation. As for who owns what land, if the landowner has a creek running through there land, they own the land including everything to do with the creek. high tide and flood marks are unfortunatly folk law. (QLD) Happy for someone to throw up the legislation to prove otherwise. Shared creek boundary subject to survey could be to one side or center of creek. I have dealt with these issues in another profession and its a landmine. An example : a road bush track to a beach. First 50 meters down road, national parks next 50, QLD railway 100 meters both side of railways, Then state forest, wetlands, National parks, beach Council, high tide to water, great barrier reef Marine Park. I may have got some of the entity names incorrect but you get the drift.

Good to hear from you Baz, it's been a while. Keeping safe and well?

Originally Posted by Bazzle218

In QLD the dividing fences and boundary act, is the go to legislation. As for who owns what land, if the landowner has a creek running through there land, they own the land including everything to do with the creek. high tide and flood marks are unfortunatly folk law. (QLD) Happy for someone to throw up the legislation to prove otherwise. Shared creek boundary subject to survey could be to one side or center of creek. I have dealt with these issues in another profession and its a landmine. An example : a road bush track to a beach. First 50 meters down road, national parks next 50, QLD railway 100 meters both side of railways, Then state forest, wetlands, National parks, beach Council, high tide to water, great barrier reef Marine Park. I may have got some of the entity names incorrect but you get the drift.

By all means you can have a watercourse running through your property but the issue here is that the property in question has a watercourse as its natural boundary.
Also tide marks are not 'Folk Law'. Common law rule is that a boundary is defined by the mean high water mark.

Originally Posted by Bazzle218

In QLD the dividing fences and boundary act, is the go to legislation. As for who owns what land, if the landowner has a creek running through there land, they own the land including everything to do with the creek. high tide and flood marks are unfortunatly folk law. (QLD) Happy for someone to throw up the legislation to prove otherwise. Shared creek boundary subject to survey could be to one side or center of creek. I have dealt with these issues in another profession and its a landmine. An example : a road bush track to a beach. First 50 meters down road, national parks next 50, QLD railway 100 meters both side of railways, Then state forest, wetlands, National parks, beach Council, high tide to water, great barrier reef Marine Park. I may have got some of the entity names incorrect but you get the drift.

Just remember that it's illegal to dam the flow of that water. Divert yes, dam no.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Just remember that it's illegal to dam the flow of that water. Divert yes, dam no.

What about restricting the flow???
Build a couple of “ponds”
Plant a few (hundred) trees
And create a natural “fence”

Might be a good place to sit and enjoy a few beverages (even if the neighbours are having a bit of a cut up session)

Problem: injured person lying in bottom of trench threatening to sue.
Solution: fill in trench.

Originally Posted by RHS58

Problem: injured person lying in bottom of trench threatening to sue.
Solution: fill in trench.
problem: what problem?

fixed.

Originally Posted by Gav 110

What about restricting the flow???
Build a couple of “ponds”
Plant a few (hundred) trees
And create a natural “fence”

Might be a good place to sit and enjoy a few beverages (even if the neighbours are having a bit of a cut up session)

Been through this with our previous property in Brissie, when the neighbouring units on our lower side tried to erect a wall to dam the water flow from several higher properties, including ours and the neighbour, a senior police officer, who called in the Logan council. The wall caused flooding in the higher properties. Logan council inspected and made them take it down. Said they could slow the overland flow, and they could divert it, but they couldn't dam it.
One solution is to form low bunds, which slow the water flow and let it soak into the ground, but don't dam it, which is a traditional Aboriginal land management method, resulting in improved pasture growth.
So, what you could do is build a series of low earth bunds, no more than a metre high, progressively down the route taken by the water. In rain the water fills the space behind each bund until it is full and then flows over the top of the bund. The water could still flow, but would be slowed by the bunds, and could soak into the ground. Then plant some nice trees or shrubs along the edges.
This is not legal advice BTW.