This case clarified an important principle of environmental law. It clarified the meaning of “impact” for environmental impact assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)(the "EPBC Act").

There was a proposal to construct a dam in central Queensland. The water in the dam was to be used to irrigate cotton crops.

The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment (“the Minister”) had made a decision under Section 75 of the EPBC Act, as to whether the dam required approval under the EPBC Act. The Minister is required to decide whether a proposed development is a ‘controlled’ or ‘uncontrolled’ action under the EPBC Act; ‘controlled’ actions requires approval before they can proceed. The result of the Minister's decision was that the indirect impact of the runoff of cotton farming was not going to be considered.

The Queensland Conservation Council and the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) wanted the EPBC Act environmental impact assessment to include the impact of the pollution and runoff from cotton farming on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

This led to a legal challenge in the Federal Court. It was alleged that the Minister's approval of the dam was made under an error of law because the Minister had failed to consider the impacts that would result from the dam's construction.

The Federal Court found that “impacts” under the EPBC Act include indirect impacts.

This decision was upheld following an appeal in 2004.

• The 19 December 2003 decision is available on Austlii

• The decision on appeal is also available on Austlii.

• Environmental Law Publishing - summary of this case

• WWF Australia

• Queensland Conservation Council