Ginninderra Falls - will they open again?

well i would really love to go to the falls, following along the creek from macgreggor would possibly get me there legally would it

Drove up the road the other day, you couldn’t get to the falls even if they were open due to all the rubbish dumped on the road by idiots.

Does anyone know if the development application to expand the quarry and build a concrete recycling plant on the site got up early last year as highlighted on the Stateline report (thanks canberratowie2)?

It would have been better just to paste it in:

38 Right to fish in certain inland waters

(1) A person may take fish from waters in a river or creek that are not subject to tidal influence despite the fact that the bed of those waters is not Crown land if, for the purpose of taking those fish, the person is in a boat on those waters or is on the bed of the river or creek.
(2) The right conferred by this section is subject to the other provisions of this Act.
(3) In this section, bed of a river or creek includes any part of the bed of the river or creek which is alternatively covered and left bare with an increase or decrease in the supply of water (other than during floods).

So in short if you want to walk in a creek in NSW carry a fishing rod.

Section 38 of the Fisheries Management Act allows you access on water ways in the bare of the stream.

This means the area up to where the water would run in NORMAL high water flow (eg Spring time), NOT where the flood level has made it to.

Very doubtful it will ever open again but here is a interesting video tasken from ABC stateline

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/11/02/2730379.htm

It’s extra tricky that it’s (just) in New South Wales – I still wish that some agreement could be found between the landowners and the ACT government to cover insurance and some of the other issues. I could hazard a bit of an abseil down various cliffs to get there from Macgregor, but I don’t like my chances.

And yes, the riperian rights around rivers are tricky – the middle is public but the edges can be private so for all practical purposes the whole thing is private cos too hard otherwise.

I really sympathise with the owners who kept it beautifully and made it open to us for ages, but how I wish I could go there now. As it is, I mostly have to go Southside to get to a good swimming spot, and as a good Northsider that’s just not on.

Maybe I could chew the gumnit’s ear on Chief Minister Talk-Balk.

No andym, land holders do not have to provide any right of way. Anyone who wants to legally get to Gininderra Falls has to either negotiate passage with the land owner or navigate via the legally accessible land, that being the river.

Note also that not all waterways are legally accessible, rule of thumb is if it’s marked on a map as a river, you can access to the mean high water mark (this does not mean the flood peaks) however if marked as a creek it’s private property.

Just on a side note, perhaps it’s a good thing the falls are locked away, imagine how tatty and spoilt they would be if the bogans and tradies had unlimited access.

All waterways in NSW are Crown Land, so access cannot be denied by a landholder just because they holds the surrounding land. Crossing private land to access the crown land may be another matter. I was under the belief that land holders had to provide a right of way to access a river, but cannot find any legislation to back up that belief.
But there is nothing to stop you walking down Ginninderra Creek from the ACT to the falls.

Unfortunately, the land is in NSW so the ACT has no claim on it. And you’re right, the falls themselves are public property, the access to them is restricted as it runs over private land. Not much that can be done unfortunately.

Sorry, my basic answer is “No, I don’t know anything”, but I’m not letting that get in the way of me having a rant nonetheless.
I thought the falls were public property, but the access road was on private land (Or am I getting confused with some other body of water?). Assuming I’ve got the right waterway…

I realise you (Flipper) know the problems, but just to reiterate: Generally it’s pretty easy to lazily assume the landowner’s the “bad guy” in this situation, however IIRC looking deeper, they really don’t have much choice when you consider:

* Public liability
* Litter
* Damage
* Upkeep

AFAICS the ball’s in the gummint’s court to “do the right thing” and sort-out a way for the public to access the land. So the torch-n-pitchfork mob should be rapping on their local member’s door (politely and repeatedly) to let them know it’s an issue of interest.