Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982

The Act revolves around a small set of legal concepts that structure its operation. Each concept is explicitly defined or operationalised in the text.

• Arterial Drainage Scheme (or Scheme). This is the central planning instrument. The Minister must ensure compilation of a Scheme that provides in a practical and economic way for planning, managing, maintaining, financing, extending and improving drainage services to serve the Area (s 98(1)). The Scheme is made concrete through plans prepared, reviewed and amended by the Minister that show catchments, natural drainage features, areas of development, the existing and proposed drainage systems and persons or bodies to be liable for provision and maintenance (s 98(2)(a)-(f)). The Scheme must make provision for classification of drainage assets as arterial drains and for drainage courses, and may provide for water conservation or aquifer re‑charge uses (s 98(3)).

• Arterial drain. A statutory classification for drainage assets. The Act defines an arterial drain as an existing or proposed drainage asset classified as an arterial drain in the Arterial Drainage Scheme (s 4(1)). The Scheme must set out what assets are designated arterial drains and delineate their routes, nature and size (s 99(4)(a)-(c)).

• Drainage asset. The Act adopts the term from the Water Services Act 2012, with the meaning of “drainage assets” given in that Act’s section 108 (s 4(1)). Using that external statutory definition ties the Act’s objects and operational features to the broader statutory architecture governing water services.

• Drainage course. The Minister may determine that an area of land sufficient to contain a drainage asset should be declared to be a drainage course (s 106(1)). The Act prescribes a process for determining commencement, route, extent, dimensions and termination; serving notice on licensees and affected local governments and, so far as practicable, owners or occupiers of land within the course; publishing an advertisement; negotiating and modifying the proposal as practicable; and publishing notices in the Government Gazette to declare, vary or cancel a drainage course (s 106(2)-(5)).

• Consultation and notice. The Act requires the Minister to consult with relevant licensees and local governments in preparing the Scheme and indicates the authorities to be consulted, including health, planning, roads, railways, conservation and environmental protection authorities where practicable (s 98(1), (4)-(5)). For designations of arterial drains and declarations of drainage courses, the Minister must provide written notice, copies of plans, and an invitation for submissions within a stated period , generally one month for drainage courses (s 99(4)(d)-(f); s 106(2)(a)). The Act also requires the Minister to negotiate so far as practicable with those making objections or submissions (s 106(2)(c)).

• Interaction with planning. Once a drainage course is declared, the Minister must inform the relevant planning authority (s 107(2)). The planning authority must “have regard to the existence of a drainage course” when considering conditions for development or subdivision (s 107(3)). The definitions of “development” and “subdivision” are linked to the Water Services Act 2012 Part 5 Division 3 (s 107(4)), embedding the drainage framework into broader development control.

• Administrative responsibility versus operational control. The Minister is charged with overall administration of the arterial drainage system (s 99(1)), but the Act expressly does not vest control, management or care of a particular arterial drain or proposed arterial drain in the Minister (s 99(3)). The Scheme is to make provision for division of responsibilities by agreement between the Minister, licensees, local governments and other persons (s 98(5) and s 98(3)). Thus the Act separates the Minister’s statutory planning and designation functions from the operational control that may rest with licensees, local governments or other bodies.

• No statutory compensation for declaration. The Act expressly states that the declaration of a drainage course is to be taken as notice that the land may be used for arterial drainage but that the declaration does not entitle any person to compensation from the Crown (s 106(6)(a)-(b)).

• Personal liability immunity for past officials. Section 19 provides that specified past members, acting members or delegates of predecessor water authorities are not personally liable in civil proceedings for acts or omissions done in good faith in connection with exercising powers or duties under this Act or the 1909 Act.

These concepts tie into other statutes through defined terms and cross‑references. The Act imports meanings and prescribes that regulations made under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 may prescribe additional matters for Scheme plans (s 98(2)(g); s 4). In practice the Scheme’s plans, notifications, declarations and the duty on planning authorities to have regard to declared drainage courses are the principal legal levers the Act provides.

The Act creates obligations and affects decisions for a focused set of players. The principal actors identified in the text are:

• The Minister. The Minister is the central decision maker for compilation, review and amendment of the Arterial Drainage Scheme (s 98(1)-(5)), for designation of arterial drains (s 99(4)(a)-(c)), and for declaring, varying or cancelling drainage courses (s 106(1)-(5)). The Minister also has duties to consult and consult with licensees and local governments and, where practicable, other statutory authorities (s 98(4)-(5); s 99(4)(d)-(f)).

• Relevant licensees. The Act requires consultation and notification of “relevant licensees” in preparing the Scheme and in designation of arterial drains and drainage courses (s 98(1) and (4); s 99(4)(d)-(f); s 106(2)(a)). The term “licensee” is defined by reference to the Water Services Act 2012 section 3(1) (s 4(1)). In practice this will include statutory or private entities holding licences under the Water Services Act 2012 whose assets or operations are implicated in drainage.

• Local governments. Local governments for districts in which an arterial drain or drainage course is or is to be situated are recipients of the Minister’s notices and are parties required to be consulted in preparing and implementing the Scheme (s 98(4)-(5); s 99(4)(d)-(f); s 106(2)(a)). The Scheme explicitly contemplates division of responsibilities by agreement between the Minister and local governments (s 98(5)).

• Planning authorities. The Minister must inform planning authorities of the existence of a drainage course (s 107(2)), and planning authorities are required to have regard to that existence when considering development or subdivision conditions (s 107(3)). These duties bring planning authorities into the operational interface between drainage planning and land use control.

• Owners and occupiers of land within proposed drainage courses. The Minister must, so far as practicable, serve notice on each person who is an owner or occupier within the boundaries of a proposed drainage course and give an opportunity to make objections and submissions within one month (s 106(2)(a)). The declaration that land is comprised within a drainage course is taken as notice of the Minister’s intention that the land is liable to be used for arterial drainage (s 106(6)(a)). The Act also expressly states that such declaration does not entitle any person to compensation from the Crown (s 106(6)(b)). Owners and occupiers therefore bear the immediate legal consequence that planning authorities must later have regard to the drainage course; they may face development conditions that reflect drainage considerations.

• Developers and subdividers. Because a planning authority must have regard to a drainage course when imposing conditions on development or subdivision (s 107(3)), developers and subdividers operating within or adjacent to declared drainage courses are directly affected. The Act incorporates the Water Services Act 2012 definitions of development and subdivision for this purpose (s 107(4)).

• Other statutory authorities. The Minister is required to consult, in so far as practicable, authorities or bodies responsible for health, planning, roads, railways, conservation and environmental protection and waterways in preparing and implementing the Scheme (s 98(4)). These agencies will be implicated where Scheme plans intersect with their statutory functions.

• Bodies with operational control of drains. The Act distinguishes administrative responsibility (the Minister) from operational control and management. Section 99(3) expressly states that the Act does not vest control, management or care of an arterial drain or proposed arterial drain in the Minister. Therefore entities that already hold operational control,whether licensees, local governments or other statutory bodies,continue to exercise those functions. The Scheme is intended to coordinate and allocate responsibilities by agreement (s 98(5)).

Secondary or indirect effects extend to insurers, financiers and valuers. The absence of a statutory compensation entitlement where a drainage course is declared (s 106(6)(b)) can affect property valuation, lending decisions and insurance risk assessment for land in or near declared drainage courses. Likewise, parties involved in consenting to developments will have to factor in the Scheme and any local government or licensee obligations assigned by agreement under the Scheme (s 98(5)).

The Act’s cross‑references to the Water Services Act 2012 and the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 mean that entities regulated or licensed under those Acts should monitor amendments, plans and notices under the Scheme for implications on asset classification, maintenance obligations and finance arrangements. The compilation notes also show multiple structural changes to the water sector over time, with predecessor bodies referenced in s 4(1) and s 19, so affected bodies should confirm whether they are “former Commission”, “former Metropolitan Authority” or current corporate entities for any transitional entitlements or duties.

The Act imposes specific duties on the Minister and prescribes certain rights or procedural entitlements for affected parties. The principal duties and rights, as expressed in the statutory text, are:

Duties of the Minister

• Ensure the Scheme is compiled. The Minister must ensure compilation of the Arterial Drainage Scheme to provide for planning, management, maintenance, financing, extension and improvement of drainage services (s 98(1)).

• Prepare, review and amend Scheme plans. The Minister shall prepare and from time to time review and amend plans that together illustrate the Scheme and that show catchments, natural drainage features, development areas, existing and proposed drainage systems and persons liable for provision and maintenance (s 98(2)(a)-(f); s 98(3)). Regulations made under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 can prescribe additional matters for these plans (s 98(2)(g)).

• Consult relevant stakeholders when preparing and implementing the Scheme. The Minister must consult and collaborate with all relevant licensees and local governments of affected districts and, so far as practicable, consult the authorities responsible for health, planning, roads, railways, conservation, environmental protection and waterways (s 98(4)-(5)). The Scheme is to make provision for division of responsibilities by agreement among the Minister, licensees and local governments (s 98(5)).

• Determine which drainage assets are arterial drains. The Minister shall determine designation of drainage assets (existing or proposed) as arterial drains and assign names, delineate commencement, route and termination points and indicate nature and size (s 99(4)(a)-(c)).

• Notify and invite submissions. The Minister must notify affected licensees and local governments, provide plans with notifications, invite submissions within a reasonable time and review designations as necessary (s 99(4)(d)-(f)). For drainage course proposals, the statutory notice and publication requirements are more prescriptive, including serving notices on owners and occupiers as practicable and allowing one month for objections (s 106(2)(a)-(b)).

• Publish declarations, variations and cancellations. The Minister must publish Government Gazette notices declaring drainage courses, describing boundaries sufficiently to identify them and specifying the plan on which lands are delineated and where it can be inspected (s 106(3)(a)-(c)). The Minister may vary or cancel such declarations by subsequent Gazette notice (s 106(4)-(5)).

• Inform planning authorities. When a drainage course exists the Minister must inform the planning authority (s 107(2)). This creates a duty to communicate the Scheme’s spatial outcomes to planning decision makers.

Rights and procedural entitlements for affected parties

• Notice and opportunity to object or submit. For proposed drainage courses the Minister must serve notices and allow objections and submissions within one month from the date of service of the notice (s 106(2)(a)). The Minister must also invite submissions and notify licensees and local governments when designating arterial drains (s 99(4)(d)-(e)).

• Negotiation and modification. The Minister must, so far as practicable, negotiate with relevant licensees and any local government or person making an objection or submission and modify the proposal accordingly (s 106(2)(c)). The text frames negotiation as practical and does not prescribe outcomes or a binding mediation process.

• Right to inspect plans. Gazette declarations must state the plan on which lands are delineated and where it may be inspected (s 106(3)(c)), thereby giving parties a right of access to the plan that defines boundaries and designations.

Statutory limits and clarifications

• No compensation from the Crown on declaration. The Act expressly says that declaration of a drainage course is notice that the land may be used for arterial drainage and that the declaration does not entitle any person to compensation from the Crown (s 106(6)(a)-(b)). This removes a statutory compensation entitlement tied to the declaration itself, though it does not address other potential bases for compensation under general law.

• Administrative role distinct from operational control. The Minister’s responsibility for overall administration is explicit (s 99(1)). However, the Act also states that it does not vest in the Minister the control, management or care of an arterial drain or proposed arterial drain (s 99(3)). The Scheme must make provision for the division of responsibilities, by agreement, among the Minister, relevant licensees and local governments (s 98(5)). That split allocates planning and designation power to the Minister while leaving day‑to‑day operational responsibilities capable of resting with others by agreement.

• Standards of consideration. Planning authorities are required to “have regard to” the existence of drainage courses when considering development conditions (s 107(3)). The phrase “have regard to” is a statutory standard that obliges consideration, but it does not equate to an absolute veto or mandatory refusal of development.

Immunity for past officials

• Personal liability exemption. Section 19 provides that persons who were members, acting members or delegates of specified predecessor water authorities are not personally liable in civil proceedings for acts or omissions done in good faith in connection with powers or duties under this Act or the 1909 Act. This is a narrow civil immunity tied to the exercise or purported exercise of statutory powers or duties.

What is not provided

• The Act’s remaining sections do not create express offences or pecuniary penalties, nor do they set out enforcement remedies such as injunctions or fines in the sections retained in the reprint. The Act relies on planning controls, agreement mechanisms and statutory notices rather than direct coercive sanctions in the operative provisions.

In short, the Act gives the Minister substantial administrative and planning duties around the Scheme and declarations, provides procedural opportunities for consultation and objection, enables publication and inspection of plan material, confines the effect of a drainage course declaration in limiting compensation claims, and leaves operational management and enforcement largely to other bodies or to agreements.

The text of the Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982, as reprinted, contains no express offence provisions, penalty schedules or administrative fines within the operative sections retained in the reprint. The Act’s enforcement architecture is therefore primarily administrative and indirect. The key enforcement and compliance mechanisms that are present or implicit in the Act are:

• Publication and notice regime. The Act requires the Minister to serve written notices accompanied by plans to relevant licensees and local governments and, so far as practicable, on owners and occupiers of land within proposed drainage courses (s 99(4)(d)-(f); s 106(2)(a)). The Minister must publish general advertisements and Gazette notices that declare, vary or cancel drainage courses and specify where the delineating plan may be inspected (s 106(2)(b); s 106(3)(a)-(c); s 106(4)-(5)). The legal effect of publication is to put the public and authorities on notice: the declaration is taken as notice of the Minister’s intention that the land is liable to be utilised for arterial drainage (s 106(6)(a)).

• Administrative adjustment and negotiation. The Act requires the Minister to invite submissions and, so far as practicable, negotiate with those making objections and modify proposals accordingly (s 99(4)(e)-(f); s 106(2)(a) and (c)). This negotiation and modification process is the principal compliance mechanism for resolving conflicts before a declaration becomes final.

• Planning authority consideration. The Act binds planning authorities to “have regard to” the existence of a drainage course when imposing conditions on development or subdivision (s 107(2)-(3)). The planning framework and local government development controls provide the principal avenue through which an identified drainage interest is enforced in land‑use decision‑making. Enforcement of development conditions and compliance with approvals remains a matter for relevant planning statutes and local government instruments rather than the Act itself.

• Agreement‑based allocation of responsibility. The Scheme is required to provide for division of responsibilities by agreement between the Minister, relevant licensees, local governments and other persons (s 98(5)). Where operational responsibilities are assigned by agreement, compliance and enforcement of those operational obligations will be through contractual remedies and the governing legislation or instruments applicable to licensees and local governments, not through penal sanctions in this Act.

• Absence of express Crown compensation obligation. The Act specifically removes a statutory compensation entitlement arising solely from the declaration of a drainage course (s 106(6)(b)). This reduces the potential for successful compensation claims premised on the declaration alone, but it does not eliminate other potential bases of claim under general law if those exist.

• Immunity for former officials. Section 19 shields certain past officials from personal civil liability for acts done or omitted in good faith in connection with powers or duties under this Act or the 1909 Act. That immunity limits private civil enforcement avenues against those individuals for covered acts.

Matters not covered in the Act that affect enforcement in practice

• No express enforcement powers against third parties who obstruct or alter drainage assets. The reprinted sections do not include express powers to enter land, carry out works, serve mandatory or prohibitory orders, impose penalties for interference with arterial drains, or recover costs from private parties. Those powers, if required, may exist under other statutes (for example the Water Services Act 2012 or local government legislation) or under agreements that allocate operational responsibility. The Act itself does not provide those coercive tools in the sections that remain operative.

• Reliance on other statutory regimes. Because the Act cross‑refers to and incorporates by reference the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage Act 1909 and regulators such as those created under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 and the Water Services Act 2012 (s 4 and s 5), practical enforcement often depends on those statutes, regulations and by‑laws. The compilation notes identify other Acts and instruments that have shaped the scheme of responsibilities over time.

• Potential administrative review and tribunal jurisdiction. The compilation notes to the reprint mention the State Administrative Tribunal conferral may be relevant to transitional issues (note 6). The Act text itself does not specify statutory appeal routes in the retained sections. Users should check whether decisions under the Scheme (for example, designation of arterial drains or declaration of drainage courses) are amenable to review or appeal under the State Administrative Tribunal Act or other administrative review mechanisms that apply in Western Australia.

Practical implications

Practitioners advising clients should take into account that enforcement of the Scheme’s outcomes will typically be mediated through planning processes, contractual agreements allocating operational responsibility, and other water or local government legislation. Because the Act does not itself create penal consequences in its current operative form, remedies against non‑compliant behaviour are likely to be pursued under complementary statutes or through civil and contractual processes. The statutory absence of a compensation entitlement for declarations of drainage courses is a significant constraint on monetary redress flowing from declaration itself (s 106(6)(b)).

The Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982 is tightly interwoven with several other statutes and regulatory instruments. The reprint emphasises cross‑references and incorporation mechanisms that integrate the Act into the broader water and planning law framework. The principal textual interactions are:

• The Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage Act 1909. Section 5(1) provides that the provisions of this Act are incorporated with and may be read as one with the 1909 Act, and that references to “this Act” include a reference to that Act and to by‑laws made under that Act or under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984. This creates a reading where the 1909 Act and its by‑laws are regarded as part of the legal fabric when interpreting obligations and powers under the 1982 Act (s 5(1)).

• The Water Services Act 2012. Several definitions in s 4 of the 1982 Act are expressly linked to the Water Services Act 2012. The term drainage assets is given the meaning provided by s 108 of the Water Services Act 2012, and the terms development and subdivision in s 107 are aligned with the meanings in Water Services Act 2012 Part 5 Division 3 (s 4(1) and s 107(4)). The Act therefore relies on the Water Services Act 2012 to define what constitutes drainage assets and to specify development/subdivision concepts when imposing duties on planning authorities.

• The Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984. Section 98(2)(g) permits regulations made under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 to prescribe additional matters for purposes of illustrating the Arterial Drainage Scheme. Section 4(1A) also imports meanings assigned under s 3 of the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 for terms used in the 1982 Act when those terms are referred to. Historically the Water Agencies (Powers) Act and predecessor Acts have restructured water authority responsibilities and terminology, and transitional references to former authorities are preserved in s 4.

• Planning and local government law. The Act requires the Minister to inform planning authorities of the existence of a drainage course and requires planning authorities to have regard to drainage courses when considering conditions for development or subdivision (s 107(2)-(3)). That creates a direct procedural interaction between the drainage scheme and planning decision making. The Act does not itself prescribe development conditions; it depends on the statutory powers of planning authorities and local governments under planning legislation to give effect to drainage considerations.

• Regulatory instruments and by‑laws. Section 5(1) imports by‑laws made under the 1909 Act or the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 into the construction of “this Act”. Regulations under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 may also prescribe matters to be included in the Scheme plans (s 98(2)(g)). Consequently, regulations and by‑laws are part of the legal matrix that operationalises Scheme functions.

• State Administrative Tribunal and administrative law. The compilation notes identify the State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 as dealing with transitional issues that may be relevant for this Act (note 6). This suggests that administrative review or tribunal jurisdiction created elsewhere in Western Australian law may apply to decisions or transitional matters arising from the Act. Any specific right of review or appeal for a particular decision under the Arterial Drainage Scheme must be determined by reference to the tribunal and review statutes and the instrument that made the decision.

• Historical and transitional links. The Act contains multiple references to predecessor statutory bodies and transitional provisions. Section 4 defines former Authority, former Commission and former Metropolitan Authority, and s 5(2) prescribes how references to former Boards or Authorities in prior written laws or instruments are to be construed after respective reorganisations (s 4(1); s 5(2)). The compilation table documents a sequence of amendment Acts that altered administrative structures, titles and provisions. Those historical interactions can affect rights and obligations created under predecessor instruments.

Operational consequences of these interactions

• Definitions and thresholds for action are partly determined outside the Act. Because key definitional terms such as drainage assets, development and subdivision derive from the Water Services Act 2012, practitioners must consult that Act to determine the scope of assets and activities captured by the Scheme and the duties imposed on planning authorities.

• The Act relies on planning and local government regimes for enforcement. The Act itself does not set out enforcement sanctions; instead it triggers planning authority consideration duties (s 107) and relies on other statutory regimes for execution of works or for operational control.

• Agreements and contractual allocation are prominent. The Scheme is expressly intended to make provision for division of responsibilities by agreement among the Minister, licensees and local governments (s 98(5)). Therefore, responsibilities and enforcement mechanisms for maintenance and operation will frequently be contractual and operate in parallel with statutory regulatory obligations under other Acts.

• Regulatory prescription is available through the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984. The Act contemplates that regulations under that Act may add detail to Scheme plans (s 98(2)(g)), so the actual content and enforceability of certain planning measures may rest on delegated legislation.

In practice, the Act should not be read in isolation. Understanding the legal effect of designations, declarations and planning interactions requires consulting the Water Services Act 2012, relevant planning statutes and local government by‑laws, and any regulations made under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 or other enabling Acts.

The reprint and compilation table included with the Act provide the statutory amendment history and show a sequence of structural changes. The following is a concise, source‑grounded chronology of material amendments and their stated mechanical effects as recorded in the reprint notes:

• 1982 , Metropolitan Water Authority Act 1982 (No. 36 of 1982). Original enactment, assented 27 May 1982; commencement 1 July 1982 (Gazette references recorded in the compilation table). The Act originally created the Metropolitan Water Authority and contained broader administrative parts and provisions that have since been deleted or repealed.

• Late 1982 , Metropolitan Water Authority Amendment Act 1982 (No. 101 of 1982). Amended the 1982 Act; commenced 31 December 1982 (Gazette reference).

• 1985 , Acts Amendment and Repeal (Water Authorities) Act 1985 (No. 25 of 1985). This Act effected numerous deletions and reorganisations. The reprint notes record deletions and amendments across multiple sections and divisions, for example s 3 deleted (No. 25 of 1985 s 30) and many deletions of division headings and sections recorded throughout the reprint (see numerous “[deleted: No. 25 of 1985 …]” annotations in the text).

• 1985, 1986 , Acts Amendment (Water Authorities) Act 1985 (No. 110 of 1985) and associated commencement (14 March 1986). The reprint shows further structural amendments noted as the 1985 Act effects took place.

• 1987 , Acts Amendment (Water Authority Rates and Charges) Act 1987 (No. 24 of 1987). Recorded in the compilation table with commencement on 14 July 1987.

• 1995 , Water Agencies Restructure (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 1995 (No. 73 of 1995). This Act restructured the water agencies and is reflected in the reprint by updated definitions and references to “former Authority”, “former Commission” and related transitional notes. The compilation table records its commencement as 1 January 1996.

• 1996 , Local Government (Consequential Amendments) Act 1996 (No. 14 of 1996) made consequential amendments commencing 1 July 1996.

• 2003 , Economic Regulation Authority Act 2003 (No. 67 of 2003). The compilation table records a commencement date of 1 January 2004 for relevant provisions.

• 2004 , State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (No. 55 of 2004). The compilation notes indicate transitional matters concerning tribunal jurisdiction that may be relevant to the Act (note 6), with commencement for relevant provisions on 1 January 2005.

• 2007 , Water Resources Legislation Amendment Act 2007 (No. 38 of 2007). Came into operation 1 February 2008 and effected changes noted in the reprint, including repeal of the Water and Rivers Commission Act 1995 (note 4).

• 2010 , Standardisation of Formatting Act 2010 (No. 19 of 2010). A formatting standardisation was applied with commencement on 11 September 2010 (note in compilation table).

• 2012 , Water Services Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2012 (No. 25 of 2012). This Act introduced significant changes to the 1982 Act, including the insertion of the long title and the renaming of the Act to the Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982 (see long title inserted note). The 2012 Act also caused wide deletions: many parts and divisions (for example Parts III-VIII and Part X and numerous sections) were deleted or repealed per the annotations in the reprint (see the numerous “[deleted: No. 25 of 2012 s. …]” and “[repealed: No. 25 of 2012 s. 24]” notes). The compilation table records commencement for relevant provisions on 18 November 2013 for certain parts, with the reprint being current as at 17 January 2014.

• Reprints. The compilation table records several reprints: an early reprint as the Metropolitan Water Authority Act 1982 as at 21 January 2000; a reprint as at 4 July 2008; and the reprint 3 as the Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982 as at 17 January 2014 which incorporates the amendments listed above.

Mechanical effects recorded in the reprint annotations

• Repeated deletions and repeals have removed large portions of the original Act. The reprint shows multiple whole parts deleted (for example Parts III-VIII and Part X) and numerous individual sections removed across years of amendment. The operative remainder centres on Part IX dealing with the Scheme, a liability immunity (s 19) and the preliminary and transitional definitional provisions.

• Terminology and institutional references have been updated to reflect sectoral restructures. The Act includes defined terms for “former Authority”, “former Commission” and “former Metropolitan Authority” to map old references in pre‑existing documents to new institutional names where appropriate (s 4(1); s 5(2)).

• Cross‑legislation alignment. The amendments and reprints have aligned the 1982 Act with newer legislation, notably the Water Services Act 2012 and the Water Agencies‑related Acts. This is reflected in the incorporation of the Water Services Act’s definitions and the references to regulations under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984.

For users, the amendment history matters because much of the original statute’s breadth was narrowed by successive legislative reforms, leaving a compact instrument focused on the Scheme and declaration process. Practitioners should check the reprint’s compilation table and the cited amendment Acts for any later amendments postdating the 2014 reprint.

The statutory text and the reprint materials supplied do not contain or reference any decided cases, reported litigation or judicial interpretations of the Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982. The compilation notes mention that the State Administrative Tribunal conferral and repeal Act 2004 and related instruments deal with transitional issues which may be relevant to the Act (note 6), but the reprint does not list any litigation or appellate rulings.

Implications and steps for locating litigation

• No cases named in the source. Because the reprint and explanatory compilation material provided do not cite judicial decisions, there is no litigation history embedded in the text. Users should not assume that the absence of referenced cases means there has been no litigation. It may simply reflect that the reprint’s editorial notes do not include court references.

• Where disputes are most likely to arise. Based on the Act’s operative provisions, disputes that could give rise to litigation or review include challenges to the validity of a Minister’s designation of an arterial drain, the declaration of a drainage course, adequacy of procedural notice and consultation, or the correctness of a planning authority’s treatment of a drainage course when imposing conditions on development or subdivision. Claims related to compensation are also a possible field of dispute; the Act expressly prevents entitlement to compensation from the Crown arising solely from a declaration (s 106(6)(b)), so litigation might focus on whether any other statutory or common law right to compensation exists.

• Administrative review avenues. The compilation notes identify the State Administrative Tribunal reforms as relevant for transitional issues (note 6). Practitioners should therefore review the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 and any conferral schedules to determine whether decisions under the Scheme are amenable to judicial review or tribunal merits review. Administrative law principles such as procedural fairness, jurisdictional error and reasonableness may be invoked in challenges to Ministerial decisions.

• Sources to search for case law. To discover any judicial or tribunal decisions interpreting the Act, search strategies should include:

  • Western Australian courts and tribunal databases for decisions citing Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982, the Water Services Act 2012, and the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage Act 1909.
  • The State Administrative Tribunal decisions database and the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) for tribunal rulings that reference the Act or its administrative outcomes.
  • Legal reporting services for administrative law decisions in Western Australia that deal with planning, drainage, or water agency powers.

Practical note

Given the Act’s present focus on planning and notification duties, the most concrete litigation avenues are likely to be administrative law challenges to the Minister’s procedural compliance, and planning law challenges where a planning authority’s decision conditionally granting or refusing development is concerned with a declared drainage course. Because the Act removes a statutory compensation entitlement tied solely to declaration (s 106(6)(b)), compensation litigation would need to be founded on other statutory provisions or common law rights, which requires case law research beyond the Act itself.

The Act contains particular features and drafting choices that can produce surprising practical consequences. The following are concrete “watchouts” for practitioners, grounded in the statutory text:

• Declaration does not yield a statutory compensation entitlement. The Act clearly states that a declaration of a drainage course “shall be taken to be notice of the intention of the Minister that the land is liable to be utilised for arterial drainage” and that the declaration “does not thereby entitle any person to compensation from the Crown” (s 106(6)(a)-(b)). Practitioners advising landowners must note that the declaration itself is not the statutory hook for a compensation claim. Any compensation claim must therefore be supported by other legal grounds if available.

• “Have regard to” is a low‑threshold planning obligation. Planning authorities are required to have regard to the existence of a drainage course when considering development or subdivision (s 107(3)). “Have regard to” obliges consideration but does not prescribe outcome; it does not compel a planning authority to refuse development. Clients should not conflate the statutory duty to “have regard to” with a mandatory veto power.

• Minister has administrative responsibility but not operational control. The Act charges the Minister with overall administration of the arterial drainage system (s 99(1)) while expressly providing that the Act does not vest control, management or care of an arterial drain in the Minister (s 99(3)). This bifurcation means that the Minister designates and plans, but the day‑to‑day management and maintenance may remain with licensees, local governments or other statutory bodies. The practical effect is that parties should identify who holds operational obligations under Scheme agreements or other instruments.

• Consultation and negotiation obligations are qualified by “so far as practicable”. The Act requires consultation with relevant authorities (s 98(4)) and negotiation with objectors “so far as is practicable” (s 106(2)(c)). These qualified duties are less prescriptive than mandatory procedural rules and may afford the Minister flexibility, but they also generate potential judicial review claims if a claimant can show that consultation or negotiation was so deficient as to be unfair.

• One month objection period for drainage course proposals. For proposed drainage courses the Act provides one month from the date of service of notice for objections and submissions (s 106(2)(a)). Missing this timeframe can foreclose a formal objection route under the Act’s process.

• Plan inspection and identification obligations. The Gazette notice making a declaration must specify the plan on which the lands are delineated and state where it may be inspected (s 106(3)(c)). Practitioners should ensure clients inspect the referenced plans promptly because the legal boundaries and implications turn on those plans.

• No express enforcement or penalty provisions in the remaining text. The Act does not include explicit powers to enforce maintenance, to issue remedial notices or to create penalties against third parties within the operative provisions. Practical enforcement may therefore depend on other statutes, contractual arrangements or local government powers. Advisers should not assume an immediate statutory coercive power exists under the Act.

• Section 19 immunity is retrospective and framed narrowly. The immunity provision shields certain former officials from personal civil liability for acts done in good faith in connection with powers under this Act or the 1909 Act (s 19). Practitioners should check whether the immunity applies to a given person by reference to the specific categories listed and whether the acts were in good faith and within the relevant statutory powers.

• Definitions rely on external Acts. Several critical terms are defined by reference to the Water Services Act 2012 and to meanings assigned under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 (s 4(1) and s 4(1A)). Therefore, the scope of “drainage assets”, “development”, “subdivision” and “licensee” is not fully self‑contained in the Act and must be checked against those other Acts.

• Transitions and historical references may complicate title and responsibility searches. The Act’s definitions maintain references to former authorities and contain transitional wording for interpreting older instruments (s 4(1); s 5(2)). When researching who currently holds operational responsibility for particular drains, practitioners must follow the paper trail through amendment Acts and the relevant reorganisation statutes recorded in the compilation table.

• No express standard for “reasonable time” in arterial drain consultation. When the Minister notifies relevant licensees and local governments of designation of arterial drains the Act requires invitation of submissions “within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice of designation” (s 99(4)(e)). Because “reasonable time” is left to the content of the notice, timing disputes may arise if consultees consider the period insufficient.

• The Minister’s powers to vary or cancel declarations are unilateral. The Minister may vary or cancel any drainage course declaration by subsequent Gazette notice (s 106(4)-(5)). This creates a dynamic statutory register but also produces uncertainty for landowners and developers who may be affected by subsequent changes in declared status.

These “gotchas” flow from the Act’s structure and wording. They indicate areas where procedural vigilance and cross‑checking with planning law and the Water Services Act 2012 are essential.

Compliance under the Metropolitan Arterial Drainage Act 1982 depends largely on the identity of the actor and the role they play. The Act sets out duties for the Minister and imposes notice, consultation and planning‑related obligations that create practical compliance steps for licensees, local governments, planning authorities, developers and landowners. The following is a practical compliance checklist anchored to the statutory text.

For the Minister or departmental staff implementing the Scheme

• Maintain and publish up‑to‑date Scheme plans. Prepare, review and amend plans that together illustrate the Arterial Drainage Scheme and that show required features (catchments, wetlands, natural drainage features, existing and proposed systems, areas of development and proposed responsible parties) as mandated by s 98(2)(a)-(f) and s 98(3).

• Consult and document consultations. Conduct consultation and collaboration with all relevant licensees and local governments, and consult, where practicable, other statutory authorities (s 98(4)-(5)). Keep written records of notifications, consultations and responses to show procedural compliance.

• Use the prescribed notice procedures for arterial drain designations. When designating arterial drains, delineate routes and sizes on specified plans, notify relevant licensees and local governments in writing, include copies of the plan and invite submissions within a reasonable time specified in the notice (s 99(4)(a)-(f)). Record and respond to submissions and carry out reviews of designations as necessary.

• Follow the drainage course declaration process strictly. For proposed drainage courses determine commencement, route, extent and dimensions; prepare detailed plans; serve notices on relevant licensees and local governments and, so far as practicable, owners and occupiers; advertise in local newspapers; negotiate with objectors where practicable and modify proposals as appropriate; and finally publish Gazette notices with boundary descriptions and inspection locations (s 106(1)-(3)). Observe the one month window for objections from the date of service (s 106(2)(a)).

• Make plan inspection information available. Ensure Government Gazette notices specify the plan on which lands are delineated and state where it may be inspected (s 106(3)(c)). Maintain accessible locations for inspection of the delineating plans.

• Keep records for variation or cancellation. If varying or cancelling a drainage course, publish the necessary Gazette notice and update plan records accordingly (s 106(4)-(5)).

For planning authorities

• Treat notification as a trigger to update development controls. When informed of the existence of a drainage course by the Minister, ensure that the planning register and decision‑making officers are aware and that relevant development assessment processes consider drainage implications (s 107(2)).

• “Have regard to” drainage courses in development approvals. When assessing applications for development or subdivision, explicitly document how the declared drainage course has been given regard in any conditions or decisions (s 107(3)). Use the Water Services Act 2012 Part 5 Division 3 definitions of development and subdivision to determine applicability (s 107(4)).

• Coordinate with local government and licensees. If conditions requiring drainage works, easements or maintenance are imposed, coordinate with local governments or licensees who will be operationally responsible under the Scheme agreements (s 98(5)).

For local governments

• Engage in Ministerial consultations. Respond to Ministerial notices and participate in negotiations concerning arterial drain designations and drainage course proposals. Document submissions and keep records of any agreements that allocate responsibility.

• Reflect drainage courses in local planning instruments. Where appropriate incorporate constraints and requirements arising from declared drainage courses into local planning policies, development contribution plans and subdivision conditions.

• Maintain operational readiness. If local government enters into an agreement assigning maintenance responsibilities, ensure it has budgetary and operational plans to carry out those maintenance obligations as required by the agreement and by other applicable statutes.

For licensees (including water service licensees)

• Monitor Ministerial notifications and Scheme plans. Because the Act requires consultation with relevant licensees, licensees should ensure they are on the Minister’s notification lists and respond to designations. Maintain internal processes to assess implications of any reclassification of drainage assets as arterial drains (s 99(4)(d)-(f); s 98(1)).

• Protect contractual and asset interests. Where the Scheme contemplates division of responsibilities by agreement (s 98(5)), licensees should seek clear contractual terms allocating liability, maintenance obligations, funding, access rights and insurance.

For landowners, developers and occupiers

• Inspect Gazette notices and plans promptly. If served with notice about a proposed drainage course, act within the one month submission period (s 106(2)(a)). Locate and inspect the referenced plan specified in any Gazette notice (s 106(3)(c)).

• Engage early with planning authorities. If a landholding is within or adjacent to a declared drainage course, raise drainage constraints early in development or subdivision processes and tailor proposals to address drainage requirements. Document how design proposals respond to drainage considerations to demonstrate compliance with the planning authority’s duty to have regard to drainage courses (s 107(3)).

• Assess compensation prospects carefully. The Act removes a statutory entitlement to compensation arising solely from a drainage course declaration (s 106(6)(b)). If compensation is being sought, obtain legal advice on whether other statutory, contractual or common law bases are available given the facts.

Cross‑cutting compliance steps

• Check definitions in the Water Services Act 2012. Because the Act imports terms such as “drainage assets”, “development”, “subdivision” and “licensee” from the Water Services Act 2012, compliance requires aligning interpretations with that Act (s 4(1) and s 107(4)).

• Maintain documentary proof of consultation and notice. For entities participating in consultation or receiving notices, preserve copies of notices, submissions, responses and meeting records. These records are likely to be central in any dispute about procedural compliance or adequacy of consultation.

• Review delegated and regulatory instruments. Check whether regulations made under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 further prescribe matters for the Scheme plans (s 98(2)(g)). Also verify whether planning or water regulation contains enforcement mechanisms or appeals that interact with Scheme outcomes.

• Seek clarity in agreements allocating responsibility. Where Scheme outcomes allocate operational, maintenance or finance obligations by agreement (s 98(5)), ensure contracts are explicit about performance standards, funding, insurance, indemnities and dispute resolution mechanisms.

• If unsure about rights or remedies, obtain legal advice. Because the Act limits compensation for declarations and leaves enforcement to other statutes or agreements, specific legal advice will be necessary where land is adversely affected or where a party’s operational responsibilities are unclear.

Following these compliance steps will help affected parties translate the Act’s administrative planning instruments into actionable obligations and protect rights where designations and declarations change the regulatory environment.