Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The lie of aqua nullius, ‘nobody’s water', prevails in Australia. Indigenous water reserves are not enough to deliver justice

News Feed
Thursday, December 22, 2022

James D. Morgan/Getty Images When the British colonised Australia they assumed terra nullius, “nobody’s land”, and aqua nullius, “nobody’s water”. In 1992, terra nullius was overturned – but aqua nullius remains. Aqua nullius denies the existence of Indigenous peoples’ own water governance principles, laid down through ancestral “first laws”. These customary laws are carried through songlines, trade routes and ceremony, embedded in a deep reciprocal economy of sharing. First laws guide the custodianship of living waters, with attention to intergenerational equity. Living waters – from rivers, to ancient aquifers to wetlands – are sacred and alive. As the source of energy to animate Country, living waters are critical to Indigenous Peoples’ collective survival. The responsibility of caring for waters (and land) are a central concern of Indigenous Peoples – but this responsibility is thwarted by aqua nullius. Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia have sought to distribute water rights to Indigenous people by establishing “Indigenous (or Aboriginal) water reserves”, setting aside a portion of water from the consumptive pool for Indigenous people’s future use. In our new policy brief, we unpack the benefits and limitations of these reserves. As it stands, the policy measure alone does not deliver justice for Indigenous peoples. A broader approach is needed. The right to water Indigenous people must be able to access water in their territories if they so choose. A United Nations declaration recognises the right to water for Indigenous people. Yet First Nations water holdings in Australia and elsewhere are abysmally low. For example, Indigenous people or organisations hold less than 0.2% of surface water entitlements in the Murray Darling Basin. In the struggle against aqua nullius, Indigenous people’s right to make decisions about water on Country is a priority. But importantly, when we talk about “water rights” for Indigenous people, the rights to access and use water is only one aspect. The bigger picture problem is that the decision-making power over water remains with governments, and this power is not shared with Indigenous people. We agree aqua nullius is unacceptable and must change. Establishing Indigenous water reserves is one option, but it’s far from clear it will deliver what Indigenous communities need. Living waters – from rivers, to ancient aquifers to wetlands – are sacred and alive. Shutterstock Indigenous water reserves The Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia have each introduced Indigenous water reserves into water allocation plans. Water allocation plans define the consumptive pool – that is, how much water can be taken each year for consumptive purposes, such as for drinking supplies or irrigation. There are at least 19 Indigenous water reserves across Northern Australia. This approach has not yet been adopted by other Australian states and territories. Read more: Australia has an ugly legacy of denying water rights to Aboriginal people. Not much has changed A major limitation of Indigenous water reserves is their narrow scope. In the NT and WA, their overall purpose is to provide economic opportunities for Indigenous people. Queensland reserves generally provide water to help Indigenous people achieve both economic and social aspirations. A focus on using water for commercial purposes risks other crucial items – such as ensuring sufficient water for Country and to maintain ecosystem health – falling off the agenda, upholding the unacceptable status quo. This is what Indigenous organisations have said repeatedly, and what our new policy brief reflects: that water for economic development is just one of many aspects to overcoming water injustice. A market-based lens There are two main reasons Indigenous water reserves should not be viewed solely through a market-based lens. First, water in Indigenous reserves in the Northern Territory are only distributed when there is surplus water. The Central Land Council has stated: in the majority of cases where the SAWRs [Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves] should be available, the water resources have been fully or over-allocated and there is no water available for SAWR. In other words, if there is no water surplus left, as determined by Australian governments, then the reserve is considered “notional”: in reality, non-existent. Read more: Terra nullius has been overturned. Now we must reverse aqua nullius and return water rights to First Nations people Second, land tenure rules and regulations are being used to determine the allocation to Indigenous water reserves. For example, in the Northern Territory, Indigenous holders of non-exclusive possession native title (that is, native title that co-exists with other forms of land tenure, such as a pastoral lease) are ineligible for water reserves. This splits native title holders into those with water and those without, based on native title rules, creating an unfair division. Arbitrary rules about who is eligible for Indigenous water reserves does not respond to the injustice of land and water stolen or forcibly acquired from Indigenous nations. In response to this failing, the Northern Land Council noted it: has been disappointed that one of its key recommendations throughout the development of the [Aboriginal Water Reserve] was not adopted through the legislative amendment – that is, that eligibility should be broadened to encompass Aboriginal people and communities who have neither land rights nor exclusive native title. Are there any benefits? In contrast with top-down and arbitrary water allocation planning policies, water reserves can also be established through Indigenous land use agreements. A negotiated agreement between Indigenous groups and Australian governments, potentially has more scope to respond to past injustice and deliver meaningful benefits. This is because it’s a negotiated settlement intended to be between partners, rather than a top-down “one size fits all” process for an entire state or territory. Read more: Australia, it's time to talk about our water emergency One possible example is the Yamatji Southern Regional Corporation (YSRC) lease of water to sand mining company Perpetual Resources in 2020. It is the first agreement between the WA government and an Indigenous nation to establish a negotiated access to water with an Indigenous Water Reserve. Chief executive of YSRC, Jamie Strickland, has stated: This agreement is the first of its kind and demonstrates how our Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserve can generate opportunities and economic benefits for the Yamatji Nation. Missing details An holistic approach is needed to ensure water rights support living waters, the environment, and spiritual and cultural connections. If Indigenous water reserves are to benefit Indigenous people, then governments must listen and negotiate in good faith with Indigenous nations. When applied in water allocation plans, Indigenous water reserves must be part of a cohesive and comprehensive approach – one that delivers sovereignty for water to Indigenous nations and responds to the gross injustice and lie of aqua nullius. Importantly, Indigenous water reserves need to be one part of a bigger-picture approach to water justice if aqua nullius is to be overturned. The Water Justice Hub receives funding from the Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship FL190100164.Anne Poelina is the volunteer Chair with the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. She does not own, share or acquire any benefits from the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. She is the Managing Director (Volunteer) of Madjulla Inc. Indigenous Not for Profit Organisation based in the Kimberley, WA. She is also a member of the Aboriginal Water Group (AWG) advising the WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulations; a member of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Water Interest; and of the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) inaugural First Nations appointment to its independent Advisory Committee on Social, Economic and Environmental Sciences. Quentin Grafton receives research funding from the Australian Research Council.

In the struggle against aqua nullius, Indigenous people’s right to make decisions about water on Country is a priority.

James D. Morgan/Getty Images

When the British colonised Australia they assumed terra nullius, “nobody’s land”, and aqua nullius, “nobody’s water”. In 1992, terra nullius was overturned – but aqua nullius remains.

Aqua nullius denies the existence of Indigenous peoples’ own water governance principles, laid down through ancestral “first laws”. These customary laws are carried through songlines, trade routes and ceremony, embedded in a deep reciprocal economy of sharing. First laws guide the custodianship of living waters, with attention to intergenerational equity.

Living waters – from rivers, to ancient aquifers to wetlands – are sacred and alive. As the source of energy to animate Country, living waters are critical to Indigenous Peoples’ collective survival. The responsibility of caring for waters (and land) are a central concern of Indigenous Peoples – but this responsibility is thwarted by aqua nullius.

Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia have sought to distribute water rights to Indigenous people by establishing “Indigenous (or Aboriginal) water reserves”, setting aside a portion of water from the consumptive pool for Indigenous people’s future use.

In our new policy brief, we unpack the benefits and limitations of these reserves. As it stands, the policy measure alone does not deliver justice for Indigenous peoples. A broader approach is needed.

The right to water

Indigenous people must be able to access water in their territories if they so choose.

A United Nations declaration recognises the right to water for Indigenous people. Yet First Nations water holdings in Australia and elsewhere are abysmally low. For example, Indigenous people or organisations hold less than 0.2% of surface water entitlements in the Murray Darling Basin.

In the struggle against aqua nullius, Indigenous people’s right to make decisions about water on Country is a priority. But importantly, when we talk about “water rights” for Indigenous people, the rights to access and use water is only one aspect.

The bigger picture problem is that the decision-making power over water remains with governments, and this power is not shared with Indigenous people.

We agree aqua nullius is unacceptable and must change. Establishing Indigenous water reserves is one option, but it’s far from clear it will deliver what Indigenous communities need.

Jabiru walking in a wetland
Living waters – from rivers, to ancient aquifers to wetlands – are sacred and alive. Shutterstock

Indigenous water reserves

The Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia have each introduced Indigenous water reserves into water allocation plans.

Water allocation plans define the consumptive pool – that is, how much water can be taken each year for consumptive purposes, such as for drinking supplies or irrigation.

There are at least 19 Indigenous water reserves across Northern Australia. This approach has not yet been adopted by other Australian states and territories.


Read more: Australia has an ugly legacy of denying water rights to Aboriginal people. Not much has changed


A major limitation of Indigenous water reserves is their narrow scope. In the NT and WA, their overall purpose is to provide economic opportunities for Indigenous people. Queensland reserves generally provide water to help Indigenous people achieve both economic and social aspirations.

A focus on using water for commercial purposes risks other crucial items – such as ensuring sufficient water for Country and to maintain ecosystem health – falling off the agenda, upholding the unacceptable status quo.

This is what Indigenous organisations have said repeatedly, and what our new policy brief reflects: that water for economic development is just one of many aspects to overcoming water injustice.

A market-based lens

There are two main reasons Indigenous water reserves should not be viewed solely through a market-based lens.

First, water in Indigenous reserves in the Northern Territory are only distributed when there is surplus water. The Central Land Council has stated:

in the majority of cases where the SAWRs [Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves] should be available, the water resources have been fully or over-allocated and there is no water available for SAWR.

In other words, if there is no water surplus left, as determined by Australian governments, then the reserve is considered “notional”: in reality, non-existent.


Read more: Terra nullius has been overturned. Now we must reverse aqua nullius and return water rights to First Nations people


Second, land tenure rules and regulations are being used to determine the allocation to Indigenous water reserves.

For example, in the Northern Territory, Indigenous holders of non-exclusive possession native title (that is, native title that co-exists with other forms of land tenure, such as a pastoral lease) are ineligible for water reserves.

This splits native title holders into those with water and those without, based on native title rules, creating an unfair division.

Arbitrary rules about who is eligible for Indigenous water reserves does not respond to the injustice of land and water stolen or forcibly acquired from Indigenous nations. In response to this failing, the Northern Land Council noted it:

has been disappointed that one of its key recommendations throughout the development of the [Aboriginal Water Reserve] was not adopted through the legislative amendment – that is, that eligibility should be broadened to encompass Aboriginal people and communities who have neither land rights nor exclusive native title.

Are there any benefits?

In contrast with top-down and arbitrary water allocation planning policies, water reserves can also be established through Indigenous land use agreements. A negotiated agreement between Indigenous groups and Australian governments, potentially has more scope to respond to past injustice and deliver meaningful benefits.

This is because it’s a negotiated settlement intended to be between partners, rather than a top-down “one size fits all” process for an entire state or territory.


Read more: Australia, it's time to talk about our water emergency


One possible example is the Yamatji Southern Regional Corporation (YSRC) lease of water to sand mining company Perpetual Resources in 2020. It is the first agreement between the WA government and an Indigenous nation to establish a negotiated access to water with an Indigenous Water Reserve.

Chief executive of YSRC, Jamie Strickland, has stated:

This agreement is the first of its kind and demonstrates how our Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserve can generate opportunities and economic benefits for the Yamatji Nation.

Missing details

An holistic approach is needed to ensure water rights support living waters, the environment, and spiritual and cultural connections. If Indigenous water reserves are to benefit Indigenous people, then governments must listen and negotiate in good faith with Indigenous nations.

When applied in water allocation plans, Indigenous water reserves must be part of a cohesive and comprehensive approach – one that delivers sovereignty for water to Indigenous nations and responds to the gross injustice and lie of aqua nullius.

Importantly, Indigenous water reserves need to be one part of a bigger-picture approach to water justice if aqua nullius is to be overturned.

The Conversation

The Water Justice Hub receives funding from the Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship FL190100164.

Anne Poelina is the volunteer Chair with the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. She does not own, share or acquire any benefits from the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. She is the Managing Director (Volunteer) of Madjulla Inc. Indigenous Not for Profit Organisation based in the Kimberley, WA. She is also a member of the Aboriginal Water Group (AWG) advising the WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulations; a member of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Water Interest; and of the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) inaugural First Nations appointment to its independent Advisory Committee on Social, Economic and Environmental Sciences.

Quentin Grafton receives research funding from the Australian Research Council.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

In oil-rich New Mexico, officials restrict new drilling

Two separate decisions limit fossil fuel extraction on public lands, protecting schools and Indigenous sites.

Decisions by federal and state officials last week will limit where New Mexico’s powerful oil and gas industry is able to drill.  On Friday, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland announced that the department will soon ban new oil and gas leases on more than 330,000 acres of public lands within a 10-mile radius of Chaco Culture National Historical Park — a UNESCO World Heritage Site of deep cultural importance to the region’s Pueblo and Tribal nations.  The day before, the New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands instituted a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on state trust lands within one mile of schools, daycare centers, and sporting fields used by students.  New Mexico is currently the second-largest crude oil-producing state in the country, and the seventh-largest for natural gas, cumulatively generating about $2 billion a year in revenue. Royalties, rental income, and tax revenue from fossil fuel operations account for as much as one-third of the state’s general fund, and finances about a third of the state’s education budget.  The measures taken last week won’t significantly curb fossil fuel production in the state — the new restrictions impact relatively small portions of land — but they will partially reshape where it is done and with what amount of oversight. They also represent a win for the growing movement to limit the impacts of oil and gas on public and environmental health in New Mexico. Last month, for example, a coalition of Indigenous, youth, and environmental groups sued state lawmakers, officials, and the governor for “violating their state constitutional duty to control the rapidly growing pollution from the oil and gas industry.” There are more than 4,700 archaeological sites within a 10-mile radius of Chaco Culture National Historical Park, according to the Department of the Interior. Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images The withdrawal of lands around Chaco Canyon will apply to federal parcels and mineral estates and not to land owned by private, state, or tribal entities. It will ban new leases but still allow production from existing drill sites and on existing leases. “Tribal communities have raised concerns about the impacts that new development would have on areas of deep cultural connection,” Haaland said in a statement, calling Chaco Canyon, “a sacred place that holds deep meaning for the Indigenous peoples whose ancestors have called this place home since time immemorial.”  The area contains archaeological artifacts and cultural sites significant to the Pueblo and Tribal nations, including 4,700 known archaeological sites within the 10-mile radius outside the park. Some Chacoan structures date back thousands of years.  While the department touted what it said were extensive efforts to gather community input, and the withdrawal does not apply to tribal mineral rights, the Navajo Nation issued an emailed statement denouncing the decision. Nation members have their own land allotments in the area, which generate revenue through leasing. “The Biden administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families,” said Navajo Nation Speaker Crystalyne Curley. The tribe could not be reached for additional comment. At the state level, New Mexico Commissioner on Public Lands Stephanie Garcia Richard issued a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on trust lands near schools “and other educational institutions, including day care centers, preschools, and sports facilities used by students.” State trust lands were granted by the federal government with the primary purpose of generating revenue for schools, according to the commission’s order, but Garcia Richard argues that the office maintains the right to withhold land tracts from leasing and that it is the responsibility of her department “to help ensure that communities are free from pollution and harmful effects of such activities.” While existing drilling sites like this one would not be impacted by the rule, new leases with 1 mile of schools will be banned. New Mexico State Land Office New Mexico state law does not currently mandate a minimum health setback for the siting of oil and gas wells, and Garcia Richard invited state lawmakers to take related action in response to her decision.  “A moratorium on new oil and gas leasing near schools … will provide an opportunity to engage the Governor and the state agencies under her purview, state legislature, and other interested stakeholders regarding potential legislative and administrative options,” she said in the order. While the moratorium only applies to new leases, it also orders a study on all current drilling activities on state trust lands to assess their compliance with regulations, “including the requirement to plug inactive wells, remediate spills, and adhere to relevant air quality standards.” About 144,000 New Mexico residents live within one half-mile of oil and gas production in the state, according to research by Earthworks and FracTracker Alliance, nonprofit groups that work to curb fossil fuel extraction. And air quality in several of the state’s oil- and gas-producing counties fails to meet federal standards. The new state-level regulations are “a first step to protecting our kids from oil and gas pollution, but it’s only on state land,” Gail Evans, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. “We need health and safety setbacks across New Mexico.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In oil-rich New Mexico, officials restrict new drilling on Jun 5, 2023.

Jump in child deaths reveals impact of industrialisation on Amazon’s Indigenous peoples

As an economic boom’s gains pass them by, people in unprotected land have been hit by hunger and disease, with infant mortality rates seven times higher than the rest of BrazilThe infant mortality rate among the Indigenous peoples of Brazil jumped by 16% last year, according to new data, as experts warn that the expansion of legal and illegal extractive industries in the Amazon rainforest has had profound effects on the health and quality of life of Indigenous people living in unprotected areas.Over the past 50 years, the Amazon’s landscape has changed dramatically, with about 17% of the primary forest now gone, replaced by towns, roads, cattle ranches, mines and vast fields of soya beans. Continue reading...

As an economic boom’s gains pass them by, people in unprotected land have been hit by hunger and disease, with infant mortality rates seven times higher than the rest of BrazilThe infant mortality rate among the Indigenous peoples of Brazil jumped by 16% last year, according to new data, as experts warn that the expansion of legal and illegal extractive industries in the Amazon rainforest has had profound effects on the health and quality of life of Indigenous people living in unprotected areas.Over the past 50 years, the Amazon’s landscape has changed dramatically, with about 17% of the primary forest now gone, replaced by towns, roads, cattle ranches, mines and vast fields of soya beans. Continue reading...

Guam 'very blessed' with no early reports of major damage in the messy aftermath of Typhoon Mawar

HAGATNA, Guam (AP) — Chainsaws buzzed Friday as neighbors helped neighbors clear toppled trees and began cleaning the wreckage of Typhoon Mawar, which walloped Guam as the strongest typhoon to hit the island in over two decades but appeared to have passed without leaving death or massive destruction in its wake. While it was still...

HAGATNA, Guam (AP) — Chainsaws buzzed Friday as neighbors helped neighbors clear toppled trees and began cleaning the wreckage of Typhoon Mawar, which walloped Guam as the strongest typhoon to hit the island in over two decades but appeared to have passed without leaving death or massive destruction in its wake. While it was still early going in the recovery effort, police Sgt. Paul Tapao said there did not seem to be any major damage, main roads were passable and “Guam has been very blessed to have no storm-related deaths or any serious injuries.” To Tapao, the roar of the mechanical saws was a reminder of the resilience of the storm-prone U.S. Pacific territory and its people. “Everyone helps out with the cleaning,” he said. “That’s the Guamanian way — that’s embedded in the blood.” He added that there's a saying in Chamorro — the indigenous language of the Mariana Islands — “inafa maolek,” that means cooperation, a concept of restoring harmony or order. “Storms have taught our island to be resilient,” he said. “We’re still here.” Still, officials said it could take weeks to clean up the mess after Mawar briefly made landfall as a Category 4 storm Wednesday on the northern tip of the U.S. Pacific territory of roughly 150,000 people, flipping cars, tearing off roofs and leaving trees bare. Some villages had little or no water Friday, Tapao said. About 51,000 customers were without electricity, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And nearly 1,000 people were still in shelters as of Thursday, Guam officials said. Water contamination from the heavy rains and runoff was a concern: The Guam Waterworks Authority issued a notice advising residents to boil water before drinking it, and the Guam Environmental Protection Agency warned people to stay out of the sea at all beaches because of high bacteria content. The central and northern parts of the island received more than 2 feet (60 centimeters) of rain as the eyewall passed. The swirling typhoon churned up a storm surge and waves that crashed through coastal reefs and swamped houses. In the southeastern village of Yona, the floodwaters reached above the waist at the home where Alexander Ken M. Aflague's mother-in-law and sister-in-law live, he said. Two trucks and an SUV were completely submerged. Aflague said the mood on the island was like after every storm, as people assess the damage and move toward rebuilding their lives back to normal. His major worry was shortages, saying supplies were at levels similar to what they were during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The cleanup is the struggle but we all pitch in and help each other,” he said via text message. Also in Yona, winds peeled back the roof of Enrique Baza’s mother’s house, allowing water to damage everything inside. His mother rode out the storm with him at his concrete residence, he said, but “my mom’s house didn’t escape.” He drove around in a pickup after the storm passed looking for supplies to repair her roof, but most stores were without power and accepting only cash. Many wooden or tin homes were badly damaged or had collapsed outright. “It’s kind of a shock,” Baza said. There were long lines at ATMs and some stores and gas stations on Friday. Officials said they anticipated being able to resume operations at the flooded A.B. Won Pat International Airport next Tuesday. Guam Gov. Lou Leon Guerrero gave the all-clear Thursday evening, returning the island to its typical condition of readiness as the National Weather Service lifted its typhoon watch. “We have weathered the storm,” Leon Guerrero said. “The worst has gone by.” The storm was expected to move northwest for days over a large, empty expanse of ocean and enter the Philippine “area of responsibility” of the Pacific Ocean where that country's officials monitors storms late Friday or early Saturday. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said on Facebook that officials were preparing and the storm could bring heavy rainfall and flooding. Mawar could threaten Taiwan next week. Mawar regained its status as a super typhoon on Thursday, with winds reaching 150 mph (241 kph). By early Friday, they had strengthened to 175 mph (282 kph), according to the weather service. Mawar, which means “rose” in Malay, was forecast to maintain that general course and speed through Saturday. On Friday morning, Mawar was centered 345 miles (555 kilometers) west-northwest of Guam and 360 miles (579 kilometers) west of Rota, Guam’s neighbor to the north, moving west-northwest at 14 mph (23 kph). Carlo Quinonez, who lives near Tamuning, said he rode out the storm in a hotel and felt “very lucky” that the building was largely unscathed. A nearby abandoned building lost many of its windows and part of a wall on the fifth story, Quinonez said. “It was the peak that had us questioning our safety. Floors rattling and walls creaking. Tossing debris, and roots, and fruit everywhere,” he wrote in an email. The Navy has ordered the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group to head to the island to assist in the recovery effort, according to a U.S. official. The Nimitz, along with the USS Bunker Hill, a cruiser, and the USS Wayne E. Meyer, a destroyer, were south of Japan and expected to arrive in Guam in three or four days, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ship movements not yet made public. ___ Kelleher reported from Honolulu. AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein in Kensington, Maryland, and Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Sarah Brumfield in Washington, Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu, Mark Thiessen in Anchorage, Alaska, Stefanie Dazio in Los Angeles, Ed Komenda in Seattle and Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.