South East Queenslanders need to value their rivers and creeks like we do our beaches and bays – but we are going to have to reimagine the way we pay for the freshwater cleanup.

At least, that is the message from a leading freshwater and marine ecologist in the wake of a recent report card into the health of the region's rivers, which handed down a damning assessment of many of its inland waterways.

The Healthy Land and Water’s 21st Report Card, released in late November, saw the waters of Moreton Bay receive top marks.

Inland waterways, though, told a markedly different story.

The Upper Brisbane catchment was deemed the unhealthiest, declining from a D to an F. While it was the only system deemed an utter failure, most of the western catchments made for sober reading.

The Lockyer, Bremer and Logan catchments all remained stagnant on D-, D and C+, respectively.

But there were positive results for those who wish for cleaner freshwater.

The Albert River, for one, improved its score to a B.

Griffith University Australian Rivers Institute’s Michele Burford said that annual scores were influenced by rainfall, so yearly results should be taken with that caveat.

But the trajectory of the Albert is also encouraging, with an upward trend from C- in 2015.

The river springs from pristine headwaters in the Lamington National Park and McPherson Ranges.

But given it then flows through agricultural, then rural residential and finally urban areas before joining the Logan river, Professor Burford described B as an “excellent score”.

Mayor Greg Christensen said the results of the data compiled from July 2020 to June 2021 in the Scenic Rim are “encouraging”, particularly given the region’s 18 major catchments were struggling against the impacts of population growth.

He attributed the gradual improvements in the Albert and Logan to partnerships with neighbouring councils, landholders and environmental groups and initiatives such as the Million Trees Program Land for Wildlife partnerships

“Riverbank restoration work has included weed management, revegetation of riparian areas and stock fencing, with landholder gatherings and workshops providing opportunities for community involvement in projects,” a council press release read.

But cleaning up the Bremer was “too big for any one council or community group”, the mayor said.

His counterpart in Ipswich, Mayor Teresa Harding, blamed the Bremer’s “poor condition” on “past mistakes”.

“The Bremer River is the primary waterway in Ipswich, flowing through the heart of the city and provides an essential social, recreational and environmental corridor,” Mayor Harding said.

“It is concerning the catchment is in poor condition with a D grading meaning stream bank vegetation is only at 55 per cent cover, fish health has declined slightly, and the water quality is in poor condition.”

Mayor Harding said that last year she had requested “a full report on council’s roles and responsibilities in the management of the Bremer River and Ipswich waterways”.

Based on its findings, her council had taken “several actions to improve waterway health”.

These included teaming up with the Scenic Rim to appoint a dedicated Catchment Management Office, using stormwater to nourish street trees by diverting runoff and the “Small Creek transformation” from a straight concrete channel in Raceview to a living waterway.

The mayor warned, however, that there would be “no quick fix” to turning around the Bremer’s abysmal health report.

But the report warns even the Albert will face challenges to its health as the population of the South East booms and its urban extremities expand.

Only 31 per cent of the wetlands which once helped filter water and breed fish on the Albert remain, while 73 per cent of stream bank vegetation protects it from erosion.

Despite those challenges, Professor Burford said it was possible to have an A grade Albert, and a healthy Bremer and Lockyer.

She said the “science was there” to overcome the different challenges each system faces. But though we may know what to do, she said, the hurdles were will and money.

“Planting a few trees here and there isn't enough,” she said.

“It has got to be pretty broad scale.”

And those efforts would be costly, she said. So who should pay?

“You can't say to the farmer, ‘spend millions of dollars restoring your stream bank’, that is not realistic,” Professor Burford said.

“When you go to the taxpayer in Brisbane and say, ‘you should all be levied to fix our catchments’, that's, politically, not very realistic.”

“But there are some exciting new approaches that, I think, give us some options so we don’t have to despair so much.”

The answer, according to Griffith University’s Research Infrastructure Dean, could be “market-based approaches”.

Professor Burford said this approach would be similar to those being touted as offsets to carbon emissions.

“They would do the same with things with nutrients, and that means that you get the money you need to help restore the catchments,” she said.

“Market-based approaches provide a way of people downstream paying for the catchment restoration upstream.”

So will these approaches, and the efforts of local government, community and environment groups, turn the tide on the South East’s failing rivers?

Or will the population boom and rampant development see their health continue to decline?

Only time, and future report cards, will tell.