Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Water Entitlements as Property: A Work in Progress or Watertight Now?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reforming Water Law and Governance

Abstract

This chapter considers a seemingly simple question: are water entitlements property? Yet this question is deceptive in its simplicity. The chapter’s focus is water entitlements and licences in the context of water trading in Australia, but it also references other international jurisdictions and suggests that the concerns raised in the Australian context may have relevance for other jurisdictions where water trading is either being relied on, or being considered as a governance tool. In exploring the property question, the chapter briefly outlines three different theories of property and highlights some existing tensions between different analyses of property in order to demonstrate that property is a complex and nuanced concept which may take different forms depending on which justificatory and analytical approaches are employed. The chapter argues that despite property’s popularity in neo-liberal politics and its convenience as a regulatory tool, the impacts of propertisation should be considered very carefully before the proprietary route is embraced. Accordingly, the chapter also discusses statutory property generally and specifically the characterisation of water entitlements/licences under legislation, before considering whether water entitlements need to be characterised as property to support trading. It then explores the possible effects of keeping water entitlements/licences outside the proprietary frame, arguing that such an approach may open up opportunities for a wider range of governance tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ACIL Tasman and Freehills. (2004). An effective system of defining water property titles. Report to the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Land & Water Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. (1995). Water allocations and entitlements: A national framework for the implementation of property rights in water. Taskforce on COAG Water Reform, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G. S. (2009). The social-obligation norm in American property law. Cornell Law Review, 94(4), 745–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G., & Penalver, E. (2012). An Introduction to Property Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government National Water Commission. (2014). 10 years of water wins: Australia’s National water initiative. Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babie P., Burdon, P., & Da Rimini, F. (2017). The psychology of property. Paper presented at the 14th Australasian Property Law Teachers Conference, Curtin University, Perth, 26–28 September 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (2014). Rescuing the bundle of rights metaphor in property. University of Cincinatti Law Review, 82(1), 57–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett Moses, L. (2008). The applicability of property law in new contexts: From cells to cyberspace. Sydney Law Review, 30(4), 639–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogojevic, S. (2013). Emissions trading schemes: Markets, states and law. London: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, J. (2002). Fencing off ideas: Enclosure and the disappearance of the public domain. Dædalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 131(2), 639–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bring Back British Rail. (2017). Bring Back British Rail website., Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.bringbackbritishrail.org.

  • Carr, H., & Wong, S. (2016). Feminist approaches to property law research. In S. Bright, & S. Blandy (Eds.), Researching Property Law (pp. 164–179). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., & Malcolm, R. (2017). The role of property in water regulation: Locating communal and regulatory property rights on the property rights spectrum. In C. Godt (Eds.), Regulatory Property Rights: the transforming notion of property in transnational business regulation (pp. 121–140), Leiden, Boston: Brill/Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (1995). Second Report of the Working Group on Water Resource Policy to the Council of Australian Governments, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, E. (2012). Land law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Australian Governments, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative Between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. (2004). Retrieved January 24, 2017, from http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/water/Intergovernmental-Agreement-on-a-national-water-initiative.pdf.

  • Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57(2), 347–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson, D. (2007). Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson, D. (1997). Property, women and politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgeworth, B., Rossiter, C., Stone, M., & Connor, P. (2012). Sackville and Neave, Australian property law (9th ed.). Sydney: Lexis Nexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgot, J. (2016). Corbyn to launch transport campaign with rail pledges. Available via The Guardian. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/16/corbyn-to-launch-transport-campaign-with-rail-pledges.

  • Fagot-Largeault, A. (1998). Ownership of the human body: Judicial and legislative responses in France. In H. Ten Have, J. Welie, & S. Spicker (Eds.), Ownership of the human body: Philosophical considerations on the use of the human body and its parts in healthcare (pp. 115–140). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. E. (2004). Rights of property in water: Confusion or clarity. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 21(3), 200–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyfogle, E. T. (2007). Private property: Correcting the half truths. Planning and Environmental Law, 59(10), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. (1958). Positivism and fidelity to law: A reply to professor Hart. Harvard Law Review, 71(4), 630–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton, Q., Squires, D., Fox, K. J. (2000). Private property and economic efficiency: a study of a common pool resource. Journal of Economics and Law, 43(2), 679–714, cited in Gray, J., & Lee, L. (2016). National Water Initiative styled water entitlements as property: Legal and practical perspectives. Environmental Planning and Law Journal, 33(4), 284–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2006). Legal approaches to the ownership, management and regulation of water rights from riparian rights to commodification. Tranforming Cultures eJournal, 1(2), 64–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2008). Watered down: Legal constructs, tradable entitlements and the regulation of water. In G. Develeena, H. Goodall, & D. Stephanie (Eds.), Water, sovereignty and borders in Asia and Oceania (pp. 147–168). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J., & Gardner, A. (2008). Legal access to sewage and the re-invention of wastewater. AJNRL&P, 12(2), 115–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2011). Mine or ours? Sewage, recycled water and property. In K. Bosselman & V. Tava (Eds.), Water rights and sustainability (pp. 154–172). Auckland: New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J., Foster, N., Dorsett, S., & Roberts, H. (2017). Property law in New South Wales (4th ed.). Sydney: Lexis Nexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2012). The legal framework for water trading in the Murray Darling Basin: An overwhelming success? Environmental, Planning and Law Journal, 29(4), 328–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K. (1991). Property in thin air. Cambridge Law Journal, 50(2), 252–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K. (2010). Regulatory property and the jurisprudence of quasi-public trust. Sydney Law Review, 32(2), 237–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannam, P. (2017). High and dry: Adani seeks additional surface water to feed giant coal mine, SMH. Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from http://www.smh.com.au/environment/high-and-dry-adani-seeks-additional-surface-water-to-feed-giant-coal-mine-20170405-gve42a.html.

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review, 71(4), 593–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, M. (2004). Colorado river water rights: Property rights in transition. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 1661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, S. (2010). Statutory verification of water rights: The ‘insuperable’ difficulties of propertising water entitlements. Australian Property Law Journal, 19(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 23(16), 28–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honore, A. M. (1999). Ownership. In L. J. Coleman (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of law (pp. 557–597). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, N. (2015). Capacity sharing and the future of water property rights. Paper presented at ABARES, Crawford School, ANU seminar, Sydney 17 September 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1739). A treatise on human nature. In L. A. Selby-Bigge, & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • John Quiggin Opinion and Consulting. (2014). Electricity privatisation in Australia: A record of failure. Report commissioned by the Victorian Branch of the Electrical Trades Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1964). Lectures on Ethics, cited in Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self-ownership, freedom and equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, B., & Shepheard, M. (2014). Changing conceptions of the right to water: An eco-socio-legal perspective. Journal of Environmental Law., 26(2), 215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laslett, P. (Ed.). (1964). Locke: Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T., & Jouravlev, A. (1998). Price, property and markets in water allocation. Report prepared for the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carribbean. Santiago, Chile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lueck, D. (2003). First possession as the basis of property. In T. L. Anderson & F. S. McChesney (Eds.), Property rights: Cooperation, conflict and law (pp. 200–226). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., & Verbeck, M. (2002). Property rights and property responsibilities. In Property rights and responsibilities: Current Australian thinking. Land and Water Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, V. (2017). Overturning aqua nullius: Securing Aboriginal water rights. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, M. (2009). Water rights in NSW: Properly property? Sydney Law Review, 31(3), 443–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, T. W. (1998). Property and the right to exclude. Nebraska Law Review, 77(4), 730–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, K., Grinlinton, M., & Hughes, N. (2015). Australian water market report 2013–14. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, prepared for the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Competition Council, National Competition Policy. Retrieved January 27, 2017, from http://ncp.ncc.gov.au/pages/water.

  • Penner, J. E. (1997). The idea of property in law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato, C. 370 BC. Republic. (1993). Trans. R. Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (1992). Economic analysis of law (4th ed.). Boston: Little Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poudhon, P.-J. What is Property? Or, an inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. (1840). Trans B. R. Tucker. Humboldt Publishing, c 1890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. M. (1992). Women and property: Gaining and losing ground. Virginia Law Review, 78(2), 421–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. M. (1994). Property and persuasion: Essays on the history, theory, and rhetoric of ownership. Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, J. (1999). Playing darts with a Rembrandt: Public and private rights in cultural treasures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. W. (2000a). Entitlements: The paradoxes of property. Yale: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. W. (2000b). The edges of the field: Lessons on the obligations of ownership. Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. W. (2014). Property as the law of democracy. Duke Law Journal, 63(6), 1287–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. E. (2012). Property as the law of things. Harvard Law Review, 125(7), 1691–1703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, M. (2006). Not of this Earth: The extraterrestrial nature of statutory property in the 21st century. Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal, 25(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (1998). The right to private property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (1985). What is private property? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 5(3), 313–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walpole, M., & Gray, J. (2010). Taxing virtually everything: cyberspace profits, property law and taxation liability. Australian Taxation Review, 39(1), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. (2008). Women, marriage and property in wealthy landed families in Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Case Citations

  • Armstrong v Winnington Networks Ltd (2013) Ch 156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attorney General (NT) v Chaffey (2007) 231 CLR 651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australia Rice Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (2001) 48 ATR 498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 176 CLR 480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v WMC Resources Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 36 U.S. 420 (1837).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies v Littlejohn (1923) 34 CLR 174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friendswood Development Co v. Smith- Southwest Industries Inc 576 OS/ W/ 2d 21. 22 (Tex 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (2009) 240 CLR 140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 175 CLR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin v Martin (2010) NSWSC 700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milirrpum v Nabalco (1971) 17 FLR 141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister for Primary Industry and Energy v Davey (1993) 47 FCR 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore v Regents of University of California, 51 Cal, 3rd 120, 793, P. 2d, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth (1965) 1 AC 1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Taxation (1970) 121 CLR 154.

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telstra Corporation Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (2008) 234 CLR 210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wik Peoples v State of Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapletal v Wright (1957) Tas SR 211.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Janice Gray

  2. Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Sydney, Australia

    Louise Lee

Authors
  1. Janice Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janice Gray .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Cameron Holley

  2. University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Darren Sinclair

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gray, J., Lee, L. (2018). Water Entitlements as Property: A Work in Progress or Watertight Now?. In: Holley, C., Sinclair, D. (eds) Reforming Water Law and Governance. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8977-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8977-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8976-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8977-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation