A concrete and masonry wall built in 1928 to capture water at Western Australia's Wave Rock has deteriorated to the point where local stakeholders are divided over whether the aging infrastructure should be preserved or dismantled. The wall, which channels rainwater into the Wave Rock Reservoir for non-potable use, is crumbling and has been vandalized, raising questions about balancing natural heritage with practical water management.
The Infrastructure Debate
Kondinin Shire president and local farmer Kent Mouritz argues the wall should remain in place. The reservoir serves as an important non-potable water source, particularly for firefighting operations. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services recently established a water-bombing station at Wave Rock only a couple of kilometres away, making the reservoir's reliability crucial for emergency response. Mouritz also pointed to safety concerns. "The other reason I don't want to see it removed is because it helps stop people from falling off the rock," he said.
The Water Corporation supports retention of the 98-year-old structure. A spokesperson said the long-term impacts of climate change on water sources across the Great Southern, combined with increasing demand, meant the Wave Rock Reservoir remained an important non-potable water supply for the community. The corporation said retaining the reservoir supported local farming interests and helped reduce demand on scheme water. A ranger has assessed the wall's condition, and the corporation continues periodic inspections, scheduling repairs when required. "While some small sections of the catchment wall are missing, enough rainfall is being funnelled to fill the dam," the spokesperson said.
Environmental Concerns
Noongar man and Hyden local Michael Ward wants the wall removed, at least temporarily, to restore the rock's natural water flow and appearance. Ward says tar seeping from the aging structure has stained the famous granite formation and altered its natural colours. He recalls that as a child, the colour of Wave Rock was "like the stripes of a tiger" and that the rock face has changed significantly. "It feels like the wave has been coloured-in compared to what it used to look like," Ward said.
The deterioration stems from the wall's construction method. "When they put the emulsion on top and sealed it, it worked initially," Ward said. "Over the years the wall has aged, and water is now able to seep underneath. Instead of fast-flowing water washing over the rock, it's become slow-moving, allowing pigment and sediment from the tar to stain the wave face." Ward believes removing the wall would allow rainwater to flow naturally over the rock. "The amplifying sound of the water crashing down [would be] huge," he said. "That's its natural flow. Before the wall was put on top, the water would naturally flow down whenever it rained."
The Natural Formation
Wave Rock, formed 2.7 billion years ago through erosion, weathering and water movement, sits 330 kilometres east of Perth. The granite formation has become a significant tourist attraction, drawing visitors to the remote region and supporting local economic activity.
Why This Matters:
This dispute illustrates the tension between preserving functional infrastructure that serves community needs and restoring natural landmarks to their original state. The reservoir provides tangible value: water for firefighting, support for local farmers, and reduced demand on municipal water supplies in a region facing climate-driven water scarcity. The wall also serves a safety function for visitors. Yet the structure's deterioration has compromised the very asset it was meant to protect, staining a 2.7-billion-year-old geological formation. From a center-right perspective, the question isn't whether to preserve nature or serve human needs—it's whether a failing 98-year-old government-built structure still delivers sufficient practical benefit to justify its ongoing environmental cost. The Water Corporation's commitment to periodic repairs suggests officials believe it does, but Ward's observations about accelerating damage raise questions about whether maintenance can truly solve the problem or merely postpone a harder decision.