NSWIC NEW SOUTH WALES

IRRIGATORS’

COUNCIL

PO Box R1437

Royal Exchange NSW 1225

Tel: 02 9251 8466

Fax: 02 9251 8477

info@nswic.org.au

www.nswic.org.au

ABN: 49 087 281 746

05 July 2012

General Meeting

Agenda and Supporting Documents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AGENDA .............................................................................................................. 3

3. Minutes of the General Meeting 01 March, 2012 ......................................... 4

- Namoi Water Study Ministerial Oversight Committee .......................... 15

- Strategic Regional Land Use Policy Reference Group ......................... 17

4.2 Valley Updates ........................................................................................... 21

- Macquarie River Food and Fibre ............................................................ 21

- Murray Irrigation ...................................................................................... 22

Namoi Water Study Ministerial Oversight Committee ................................... 23

3

NSW IRRIGATORS’ COUNCIL

GENERAL MEETING AGENDA Sir Stamford Hotel, 93 Macquarie Street, Prince Albert Room

05 July 2012 commencing at 9:00am

AGENDA 1. Chairman’s Welcome 2. Apologies

3. Minutes of previous General Meeting 01 March, 2012

3.1 Business arising

4. Chairman’s & Members’ Reports

4.1. Chairman’s Report 4.2. Valley updates (attached)

5. NSWIC Representations

5.1. Land and Water Advisory Panel (LWAP) Susan Madden 5.2. Namoi Catchment Study (attached) Namoi Water

6. Financial Report Ted Morgan

7. GUEST – Mark Harris (NSW Office of Water)

8. GUEST – David Harris (Snowy Hydro)

9. GUEST – Jamie Briggs MP

10. POLICY MOTIONS

NO MOTIONS LODGED

11. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

11.1. IPART Pricing Review Stefanie Schulte - Impact on ACCC Rules / MDBA Charges

11.2. State Water Price Determination 2014 Stefanie Schulte

11.3. IPART Energy Pricing Review Update Stefanie Schulte

11.4. CEWH Trading Arrangements Update Stefanie Schulte 11.5. Inquiry into the Management of Public Lands Stefanie Schulte 11.6. MDBA future Rule Changes (operational) Louise Burge

- Environmental Water / Carryover / Menindee

11.7. Shepherding – Northern & Southern Implications Andrew Gregson

- NSWIC position still appropriate

11.8. Basin Plan Update Andrew Gregson

12. GENERAL BUSINESS

Documentary / Website – MDBA info not yet known by public Louise Burge

Future Council meetings – 01 November 2012 (AGM) / 07 March 2013 / 04 July 2013

13. Close 4:00 (approx)

4

3. Minutes of the General Meeting 01 March, 2012

Minutes of the General Meeting New South Wales Irrigators’ Council Limited

Held at: Sir Stamford Hotel – Prince Albert Room 93 Macquarie Street, Sydney on 01 March 2012

1. CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME

The Chair opened the meeting at 09:00 am and welcomed delegates and observers.

2. ATTENDEES

Member Organisation - Class A Delegate Representative

Bega Cheese Border Rivers Food and Fibre Tim Napier Coleambally Irrigation Limited Trent Gardiner John Culleton Cotton Australia Michael Murray Gwydir Valley Irrigators’ Association Inc. Joe Robinson Zara Farrell High Security Irrigators Inc Brian Halse Hunter Valley Water Users Association Lachlan Valley Water Ted Morgan Mary Ewing Macquarie River Food and Fibre Mike Bennett Susan Madden Mid Coast Dairy Advancement Group Mungindi-Menindee Advisory Council Murray Irrigation Limited Tim McKindlay Jenny McLeod

Perin Davey Murray Valley Water Diverters Assoc. Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc Richard Stott Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited Liz Watson

Karen Hutchinson Murrumbidgee Private Irrigators’ Inc. Murray Shaw Jennie Hehir Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Deb Buller Namoi Water Jon Baker

Tim Duddy NSW Farmers’ Association Helen Dalton Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia Ruth Wade

Hayden Cudmore Richmond Wilson Combined Water Users Southern Riverina Irrigators Ted Hatty Louise Burge South Western Water Users Association Col Thomson West Corurgan Private Irrigation District Mike Duncan

Member Organisation – Class B Delegate Representative

Riverina Citrus Wine Grapes Marketing Board

NSW Irrigators’ Council

Andrew Gregson Chief Executive Mark Moore Policy Analyst Stefanie Schulte Economic Policy Analyst

5

Guests Organization

David Harriss NSW Office of Water Rob O’Neill NSW Office of Water Luke Foley Shadow Water Minister

Apologies from Member Organizations

Mid Coast Dairy Advancement Group Murray Valley Water Diverters

Apologies from Delegates and Observers

Bega Cheese Ken Garner Bega Cheese Richard Parbery Border Rivers Food and Fibre David Coulton Cotton Australia Adam Kay Mungindi-Menindee Advisory Council Ian Cole Hunter Valley Water Users Assoc. Scot Wheatley Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited Gillian Kirkup Ricegrowers’ Association Murray Valley Water Diverters

Les Gordon Neil Eagle

Richmond Wilson Combined Water Users Chris Magner High Security Irrigators Ross Harvey Mid-Coast Dairy Advancement Group Trevor Middlebrook Mugundi-Menindee Advisory Council Bruce Jackson Riverina Citrus Frank Battistel Riverina Citrus Dom Testoni Wine Grapes Marketing Board Eric Berton Wine Grapes Marketing Board Brian Simpson

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS GENERAL MEETING

Changes to previous minutes: Michael Murray did not second the motion on buybacks (p.8) Andrew G. suggestion to delete motion from minutes as it didn't pass. Gillian Kirkup was not an apology - she was just late

Tim Duddy was observing according to the minutes but he was not present during the meeting. Motion - stated that chairman moved and Trent Gardiner second but Michael Murray moved it first

Changes made to Minutes. It was moved: Not recorded Seconded: Not recorded “That the Minutes of the previous NSWIC General Meeting held on 01 November 2011 be accepted as a true and accurate record of that meeting”.

CARRIED

3.1 Business Arising

Nothing lodged.

6

4. Chairman’s & Members’ Reports 4.1 Chairman’s Report given

Richard Stott and Andrew Gregson were travelling around the state to various commodity groups to get an idea of individuals view on the Proposed Basin Plan Views during the meetings were mixed. Richard appreciated the time to catch up with many people around the state, including many he has not met before. Discussion about the Basin Plan will arise later. There will be plenty of discussions with state government however the state government has not formulated a position yet. Richard Stott thanks the meeting for the position he has been given as chairman. He looks forward to the challenges and hopes he can make a contribution in this process. He hopes that we end up with an outcome (of the Proposed Basin Plan) , that is not necessarily in everyone's favour but one that everyone can understand.

4.2 Valley updates Valley updates were circulated with the agenda papers.

5. NSWIC Representations

5.2 Land and Water Advisory Panel (LWAP) Richard Stott

Trent Gardiner update (stepped in for Richard as he was not able to get to the meeting) MDBA was present at the meeting MDBA was given 33 questions in advance but failed to answer any. When asked during the meeting no consistent answers to the questions were provided. It was asked whether answers to these questions will be provided in writing - however no answer has yet been received. It was stated that the number of water needed for the environment in the Guide was based un unsophisticated mechanisms. The new number in the Proposed Basin Plan was determined with the help of models but no ranges were used. Instead a number was picked - the lowest number that does not cause environmental damages. 5.3 Namoi Catchment Study Tim Duddy

Report provided by Bernie George (Report 6 - attached) Funding: 4.5 million from mining and .5 million from NSW government. Discussion after Michael Murray: Is the involvement of NSW Irrigators' Council worthwhile? Bernie George: Yes but it can be difficult since there exist a contract with the NSW government and hence there will be directions from the government. Hoping to achieve outcomes that can be carried forward. The challenges from Coal mining are enormous and these challenges are not going away. Michael Murray: How long will the project continue? Bernie George: For a few months 5.4 Strategic Regional Land Use Reference Group (attached) Mark Moore

Report was given.

7

6. Financial Report

13.1. Update Ted Morgan Increase to 8 cents per ML in the voluntary level for the next financial year. There were no increases of the levies in the previous year. The increase to 8 cents will mean a 6.5% increase. Levy for member organisations will increase to $2100 (these have not increased for years) The budget will show a deficit this year. Income has been shortcoming for years. Income will hopefully be slightly better in the next financial year (there is $65,000 item for the Basin Plan that will not be spend). Next year forecast will be that the income will be about the same as this because of the CEWH water holding. Revenue will be maintained for NSW Irrigators' Council because of the levy increase. These forecasts are a conservative estimate. It is the Board's view that Council has plenty of financial backing. There is a consensus to maintain staff and business. Should there be further financial problems then the Board will review. The budget was approved and endorsed by the board.

7. NSWIC Projects – Young Farmers Forum Mark Moore

Young Farmer Projects have been financially beneficial. There has been a good response to the Young Farmers Forum in Canberra (2012) Applications for the forum are now closed (nearly full)

8. GUEST – David Harriss (NSW Office of Water)

Two items presented:

Basin Projects (Metering, Flood Plane, Irrigation farm projects, basin pipe project

Basin Plan

Three of the four Basin Projects did not pass the due diligence test. As infrastructure funding was promised for NSW referral of power – Potential to withdraw the referral of power if funding for infrastructure project is not provided. David Harriss mentioned that further funding for infrastructure projects might be tied to an agreement to the Proposed Basin Plan. The timing for agreed funding is not helpful given the release of the Proposed Basin Plan.

Further funding for infrastructure projects were agreed in October but the conditions specified that NSW had to see through the completion of all projects. This has been redrafted. The funding schedule is scheduled to start 31 March.

$26 million should be dedicated to the PIIOP pilot projects. Of the $1.3 billion asked, less than $300 million has been received. In July 2011, Tony Burke has agreed to new projects for environmental works and methods. Across the Basin $10 million dollar should be attributed (however previously promised money has yet to be received). There are 8 identified projects: $6 million for state identified projects and $4 million for community projects.

Projects for Houston Lake, Upper Murrumbidgee, Nimi Cairo project, Piping projects, Barindong dam, Macquarie Marshes, stock and domestic pipelines, Flood plain inundation assessment. There are $208 million Dollar unspent from NSW irrigation farm modernisation projects that can be dedicated to these 8 projects.

8

Discussions

After questions as to whether there has already been a referral of power from NSW to the commonwealth, David Harriss responded “yes but under the condition of infrastructure funding. There might be options to reverse this process.

Michael Murray questioned the 700 GL water recovery from Water for Rivers numbers have been checked to which David Harriss responded that modelling work has been undertaken but they are complex.

John Culleton stated that the problem of the MDBA is that the SDL constitute a quantity of water that is just coming out of the consumptive pool and that Water for River projects are not able to reduce this number. David Harriss responded that the projects have no impact on the SDL limit. The proposed SDL limit is what the government believes is needed by the environment.

Luis Burge raised the concern that the Proposed Basin Plan is just a channel system for Lake Albert but that this is a problem because the water still has to come from the Murray (i.e. a freshwater solution) . David Harriss stated that if a large project can be found that reduces downstream flows then this will be supported.

John Culleton raised the issue of water accounting: During a meeting with Knowles the topic of long term leasing arrangement were discussed, but staff claimed it would be too difficult. John Culleton thought accounting could be a challenge but it should not be. David Harriss responded to this by saying that the government is not concerned about this topic. The government just wants to buy water but realises that accounting will become an important issue later. A major problem will arise if the water charges are paid by money that is dedicated to infrastructure money.

Menindee lakes has been addressed as a separate topic.

The 1998 proposed 6 options for the Menindee lakes are available on the website. Government favours option B1 (extreme) which requires to take two lakes offline. The Government likes this option as it would mean to get a lot of water cheaply but the problem is that you cannot store it in the lakes. NOW does not support this approach. Unfortunately, a large amount of funds was promised if this option was investigated. Premier supported the investigation.

Initial investigations show that there are environmental challenges – a destruction of biodiversity (including economic problems. In the CSIRO modelling no adverse effects on water entitlements are found but NOW has concluded there will be a water reduction in dry seasons. Given the current operations, this option will lead to an empty system 18% of the time. This will reduce water availability to downstream users. Impact would likely be felt by Murray Valley users. Additionally, the water supply to Broken Hill would become prohibitively expensive (while operational costs and maintenances are not even factored in). Also flooding is likely to increase. Result: Premier withdraw from the option but agreed to continue to work with the government for alternative solutions. Whatever the negotiations – three constraints have to be met. The government wants to get as much water with less funds but not at the expense of NSW water

Any water savings achieved from Menindee lakes would be able to be used to offset any downstream reductions.

Basin Plan discussion:

There have been meetings across NSW. David Harriss regards them as a success. It has reassured NOW what the concerns over the Proposed Basin Plans were. He was pleased that there were also a few new arguments made. Social, economic and cultural issues were raised (interesting that culture and environmental arguments are not the same). David Harriss

9

mentioned that a healthy and productive river has to be maintained. Many issues cannot be solved by higher river flows. A technical assessment is not the answer necessarily. A structural adjustment takes a long time – its efficiency assessment is complex.

Discussions whether there should be a number or whether there should be a process. NOW supports the process approach. There is a general support that more water purchases should only be achieved through a slower process so that the social impacts are minimised. A NSW response to the Proposed Basin Plan has to be drafted before the end of March.

9. GUEST – Rob O’Neill (NSW Office of Water)

Discussion over Aquifer interference policy – as the legislation is not public, Rob can't be fully transparent. In April 2011, government singed off Strategic Regional Land Use Group:

1. Strategic Land Use Plan

2. Aquifer Interference policy

Both of these policies refer to one another. This will provide certain challenges but this can sometimes be improved through consultation.

The interim Aquifer Interference Policy required anyone who used 3 ML or more a year (even in exploration phase) to hold a licence. This process has been supported by the government and has bought time.

The final Aquifer interference policy is likely to take effect in the third quarter 2012.

The work on Draft Aquifer Interference Policy + Water Management act together with the water sharing plans

Aquifer Interference Policy will go through 2 stages:

1. AI approvals

2. Volumetric licenses - mining has been arguing that they have not taken water during their operational phases however the NSW office of water argued that it has and hence a license is needed (cost of water will be an issues) . There is hope that government will stick with this position otherwise it will be hard to manage balance with other users.

The critical point is the Aquifer Interference approval. A project will be either exempt or not exempt. If

1. Exempt from approval: minimal harm criteria needs to be fulfilled.

2. Not exempt

The new Aquifer Interference Policy is likely to be available for consultation soon – 8-10 week consultation will follow.

Discussion

Tim Duddy: In AI are rivers dealt with at all? How do deal with drilling under a river?

Rob: Mining under river is classified as highly connected- there have been many evolution in the AI policy. Rob stressed that the minimal harm criteria is of great importance.

Tim Duddy: Could it be the case that projects are approved and afterwards it is found that there substantial impacts – what will be done?

Rob: Whenever water is taken, then this water needs to be accounted for – i.e. the user will require a license. It should be theoretical be possible to persecute if damage has been done after approval. (contentious topic)

10

Tim Duddy: What about the topic of returning treated water back to rivers? Are you going to assess minimal harm on a percentage basis or a cumulative basis? What is regarded as the benchmark?

Rob: There will be an assessment on the individual and cumulative level. The real; issue is how the topic is considered in the holistic approach

Tim Duddy: Who was involved in the process of drafting the Aquifer Interference Policy – was there an equal representation across industry?

Rob: There has been lots of input from many groups. It is to be remembered that the policy has to be signed off by the government. The Ministers themselves are debating it. Want to give all lobby groups a chance to have an input.

Jon-Maree: Insight from the Namoi study could be beneficial for this process (Retrospective impact).

Rob: Keen to see the results of the Namoi study (even if the Aquifer Interference Policy does not have a traffic light approach. Bores are dealt with through exemptions – they are low risk activities.

Rob: there will be a charge policy (cost recovery - but not an IPART approval).

Brianna Casey: CSG or other minerals – will there be a difference between mineral exploitation?

Rob: No, this will still be covered under the same policy but the impact might be different.

Brianna Casey: Will the Strategic Regional Reference Group be consulted prior to publication?

Rob will come back when he has further information.

10. GUEST – Luke Foley (Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council)

Luke acknowledged the work that Mark and Andrew do.

Issues:

Murray Darling issues should have a triple bottom line focus: environmental, social and economic.

Kristina Keneally raised concerns in 2010 about the guide to the Proposed Basin Plan. Question over the numbers + lack of social/economic modelling. There was no acknowledgment of already achieved water savings. There were substantial costs to NSW – NSW was effectively penalised (whilst other states were less proactive and were not penalised , i.e. were able to avoid the system. Furthermore, meetings were set up with effected communities. There was a call that the NSW government needs to have a continuous involvement in the drafting of the Basin Plan.

Since the change in government , Katrina H. Has made some popular comments but the NSW government before the changeover placed a crucial role in the process. Whilst still being in government, there was already concerns over a too heavy reliance on water purchases (i.e. there was an emphasis on water savings rather than on water purchases)

Where are we now?

NSW Government is preparing a submission to the Basin Plan but there is currently no detail from Katrina H. On the response. Luke states that being in opposition has left him with little resources to conduct a detailed analysis of this issue (i.e. there are insufficient resources to give a detailed view on the issue).

Luke claims that those in government have all the resources and hence SHOULD give advice and comment on the response to the Proposed Basin Plan.

11

Luke states that the uncertainty over the Proposed Basin Plan should be coming to an end. The latest Proposed Basin Plan is an improvement to the guide. There are still strong objections to the Plan (i.e. from the Wentworth group) – and all diverging views need to be taken into consideration.

Luke states that State Labour has a strong history in working with irrigation communities and cannot ignore the concerns raised by the council.

Discussion:

Karen: You have stated that the Proposed Basin Plan is an improvement to the Guide, even though the impact from the Proposed Basin Plan is even greater in some valleys. How can this be the case? *(additional – questions to the relationship with Tony Burke)

Luke: Tony Burke and I had informal conversation - it was stressed that NSW wants balance. The Proposed Basin Plan is at the forefront of Tony Bourke’s consideration. The Guide was not balanced. Believe the current plan is more balance.

Liz Watson: Is the NSW labour party willing to work with state government to work for a balanced plan?

Luke: Yes. Stresses that the statement government has now got all the expert advice - hence it is up to them to use this expert advice.

John Culleton: challenges the word plan since there are massive amounts of logical errors – i.e. key information are missing from the Plan – and the MDBA cannot generate any answers. The Plan appears back to front.

Luke : Remains to be convinced what's been said - 2750GL is the final number - there is more work to be done after consultation.

Luis Burges: NSW has been through significant water reforms - no level of parliament understands the significant of the plan. Is there anyone who admits that the plan has flaws? How can we get a balanced plan when the greens hold the cards?

Luke: This is rather a question for Federal labour. We need to get on with this process - to get a balanced plan.

Tim Duddy: How has the figured (2750GL) been derived without an environmental watering plan. What are some of the steps to the way forward?

Luke: Just don't have the knowledge to the answer. He will work with organisation to get to a sensible plan. State and Federal government have to work together. There needs to be more water saving initiatives. There should be less focus on a number.

Trent Gardiner: The problems are the strategic buybacks (last Thursday’s announcements). These strategic buybacks do not have any strategy - is there any way to recall these purchases?

Luke: He is aware of them but not in great detail. Happy to talk to Federal Minister about this.

12

11. POLICY MOTIONS

11.1. Lachlan Valley Water

– 2007 Water Act Referral of Powers “That NSWIC lobby the NSW Government to have the referral of powers in respect of water pricing as part of the 2007 Water Act be retrieved.” Mary Ewing: Proposes a motion on the investigation of the pricing principles of the ACCC and the likely impact on members. There are likely to be large social impacts since there pricing will move towards fixed pricing. There is no consultation so far on the process. IPART has to be accredited by July – however Jim Cox does not want to implement the ACCC rules under any circumstances. Andrew Gregson: ACCC always fails to listen. The ACCC does not want to implement cost shares, and there is no consideration of customer impacts (this is outside the charter). There will be a very large fixed charge component. The cost of coastal valley will increase substantially if the NSW Government opt them to be included into the ACCC policy. There might be a push to reverse the power of defer power from states. Jennie McLeod: Should there be a push to reverse the referral of power, there might be substantially additional impacts – need to be careful what it captures and what it does not. The motion was amended. It was moved: Ted Morgan Seconded: Michael Murray “That NSWIC negotiate with the NSW Government to have IPART set determinations pursuant to their historical approach, not ACCC rules.”

CARRIED

11.2. NSWIC Board

– Col Thomson Life Delegate Status It was moved: Richard Stott Seconded: Joe Robinson

“That Colin Thomson be granted Life Delegate status by NSW Irrigators Council.”

CARRIED

12. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

12.1. Basin Plan Andrew Gregson

Discussion of prepared document. Andrew seeks clear instructions from Council how to continue the Proposed Basin Plan approach. Confidential paper – no details provided.

13

12.2. NSWIC – CEWH Trading Paper Stefanie Schulte

Introduction to Commonwealth Environmental Water – Trading Arrangement Paper (published November 2011). Outline of discussion paper: - use vs. Carry over vs. Trade environmental water. - Legislative constraints. - Capacity building example. - Operational management items - Market engagement & trading products Draft submission has been written – distributed to members on Friday for comment. Due date for submission: April 2012.

12.3. NSW Office of Water - Level of Service LVW

Mary Ewing: Whilst members pay for the level of service provided by NSW Office of Water through the IPART process, there is currently a lack of clarity. Level of service is lacking even if charges are paid. Mary questions whether there is a way to go back to the initial pricing review. Andrew Gregson: received draft term of reference in October but have not heard since. There have been internal restructuring at the NSW Office of Water. Not all services are undertaken by NSW Office of Water anymore. IPART will be waiting 1 year after it makes any recommendation. The pricing review should be taken up with the Minister. (item for future discussion)

12.4. Commonwealth Achieving SDL’s MPI

Jennie Hehir: The discussion of this item should only be undertaken after the on-farm efficiencies have been exhausted. There is no suggestion that the temporary trade should precede any of the water saving infrastructure upgrades. There are many controversial views: Murray Shaw: Should this be another part of the CEWH trading paper? Ted Hatty: to judge whether such an approach will be beneficial depends on if you need water to grow crop (i.e depends if you want to sell or buy water). Should the government enter the temporary market, there are many risks involved. Joe Robinson: supports the concept but in reality if there are questions whether anyone would need a water license. This question might be raised for the last 20% of the purchases. Jennie Hehir: The aim is to put a stop to permanent buybacks (i.e. the entitlements will remain in communities and their ownership will remain where they belong). Karen: temporary trade could potentially be used to top up of they don't have enough. Tim: It should be a first requirement that purchases of water are based on environmental requirement. Hayden: Concern that Ricegrowers will be excluded from temporary market.

14

Ted Hatty If the government wants to buy entitlement, we cannot stop them.-concerns similar to Hayden in that annual cropping plans have to be based around behaviour of CEWH if it engages in temporary trade. Michael Murray: There is currently a preference to buy permanent entitlements. From an industry point of view there should be a greater encouragement to use temporary market. Does not regard this as a significant issue at the moment Louis Burge: Government involvement has impact on everyone to buy/sell water. Water might go back to mining.

13. GENERAL BUSINESS

No additional comments.

Council meeting dates – 05 July 2012, 01 November 2012 and 07 March 2013

14. Close 4:00 (approx)

15

Industry Representation - Namoi Water Study Ministerial Oversight Committee

Report #6 March 2012

Purpose of the MOC

The Namoi Water Study Ministerial Oversight Committee (MOC) was set up in August 2009 to conduct the commissioning of the Namoi Water Study and to oversee the administration and conduct of the study on behalf of the NSW Minister for Mineral and Forestry Resources.

Purpose of the Namoi Water Study

The purpose of the study is to collate quality data to assist in identifying the risks associated with mining and gas development on the water resources of the Namoi Valley. The scope of the study is whole of catchment. Current funding is $4.50 million comprising $3.00 mil. from the collective mining and gas companies and $1.50 mil. from the Australian Federal Government. Members of the MOC

Chairman MOC: Mal Peters NSW Minerals Council: David Frith (replacing Sue Ern Tan) Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers Association: Mathew Paul Regional Development Authority Northern Inland: Heather Ranclaud NSW Farmers Association: Bob Hunter NSW Irrigators Council: Bernie George Australian Federal Government Dept. of Environment Water Heritage and the Arts: Peter Baker NSW Government Department of Industry and Investment: Secretariat Technical Adviser: Ross Best; Coffey Geotechnics Project Manager; Glenn Boddington; Coffey Geotechnics Progress to March 2012

Updated progress to date is;

Schlumberger Water Services has recently issued the Phase 3 Report and Reference Manual.

Custodians of the Model; o The output of the Namoi Water Study is a three dimensional model which can be

used by the community to test various mining and CSG cases and give an assessment of the risks to the water resource posed by each case. This will require a custodian of the model and ongoing funding to run the model and interpret various outcomes. The Ministerial Oversight Committee (MOC) and the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) propose that the custodian of the study model be the Namoi CMA. The currently assigned custodian is the NSW DTIRIS (Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services)

o The Namoi CMA have underway work on risk management methodology on the

cumulative impacts of mining as part of Commonwealth funded bio-regional assessments in priority areas like the Namoi Valley under the Mineral and Resources Rent Tax Legislation. The Namoi Water study model can become a fundamental part of these regional assessments.

16

o The NSW State Government is currently deliberating on the CMA custodianship issue. One possibility is shared custodianship with NSW DTIRIS. The Commonwealth Government, part funder, along with MOC/SAG, are all demanding that the home of the study model be the Namoi CMA.

The Phase 3 Report from Schlumberger Water Services (SWS) failed to address a Scenario 6 which had been specified by the SAG and supported by the MOC. Scenario 6 involves a high flow sensitivity case for Coal Seam Gas (CSG) simulation to identify the effect of higher groundwater extraction rates.

SW has released drafts of the Monitoring Plan and User Manual.

The study provides for a peer review of the work of SWS. The MOC/SAG is currently initiating the peer review process.

The next MOC/SAG meeting is scheduled for 05 March with public meetings to discuss Phase 3 reports with the community set down for 23 March in Gunnedah and Quirindi.

Phase reports and other relevant information is available at www.namoicatchmentwaterstudy.com.au

BAF George MOC Member Representing NSWIC 24/02/2012

25/10/2011

Back to agenda

17

- Strategic Regional Land Use Policy Reference Group Report to Council March 2012

Further meetings of the reference committee were held on Nov 17th and Dec 14th 2012. The December 14 meeting discussed a proposed Gateway Process that may be applied to future mining applications Consensus of most reference committee members was that much more work needs to be done before agreement could be reached. Of particular concern was

The criteria development process and opportunity for timely input.

That process be applied as early in development process as practical

Clarification of make-up of committee and relationship to final determinations

The importance of inclusion of highly connected streams and aquifers in definitions.

Need to consider land with irrigation and stockwater infrastructure.

Recognition of Critical Industry Structures. Mapping Projects

A demonstration of type of GIS mapping that was being prepared for Upper Hunter and New England area as pilots. Reference Committee members submitted:

Need to be able to comment on final maps.

Need for Agriculture to be given same status as mining. i.e no preference to extractive industry.

Need to recognise importance of highly connected streams and aquifers.

Criteria used and incorporated needs to be improved

Cost Benefit Analysis Treasury still not able to provide methodology proposed. (Subsequently treasury consultants [CIE] have had discussions with most stake holders on practicality and possible methodology which may be useful) Draft Aquifer Interference Policy NOW advised that rewrite of policy was in progress and hoped to submit Cabinet Minute in December with release for public consultation in early December. (At to-days date, 17th Feb, there have still been no announcements) Ministers Comments Minister Hazzard was in attendance for portion of the meeting; He stressed the importance of concluding matter in the coming weeks and proposed a one day workshop in December to try to reach agreement on gateway process. He emphasised the advice role of the reference committee and cabinet would consider that advice when making a decision One Day Workshop 14th December. This workshop followed on from November meeting with participation from all stake holder groups, Minister Hazzard (absent at times), nine government departments, 4 at DG level, and facilitated by Brian Gilligan. The stated aim of the workshop was ‘to reach balanced commonsense outcomes on the gateway process”.

18

Each Stakeholder group was given an opportunity to make an initial submission as well as DP&I overview of process so far and gateway proposal; NOW very brief report on progress of AI policy and Treasury advised on progress with Cost Benefit Study. Following two separate workshop sessions, each group reported back on their consideration of key questions relating to the gateway process. The concluding session captured key outcomes, as follows:

Stakeholders reached consensus on the following points: The Gateway process should apply to proposals for all types of State significant development on strategic land, and not just mining and coal seam gas proposals. The basis of this position is that other forms of development can have an equally significant impact on strategic land as mining and coal seam gas developments. The Gateway process should be assessed by an independent panel of experts. The expertise on this panel should reflect the gateway criteria (e.g. soil science, agricultural economics, hydrogeology, ecology and mining) and be tailored according to the region where the gateway process is being applied. There was also general agreement that such a panel should have an assessment role only, with the gateway decision made by another body (for example, the Planning Assessment Commission, the Government or the Minister) following consideration of the panel’s recommendation. Some members also suggested there should be a right to appeal the gateway decision. Stakeholders reached general agreement (rather than clear consensus) on the following points: The Gateway process should be applied to proposals at the earliest possible stage. However, there was disagreement as to what constitutes the earliest possible stage. Some members believed that the impacts from exploration activities warranted a gateway process, whilst others argued that the information available on the project design and the properties of the site is not sufficiently detailed at the exploration stage to allow a gateway process to be applied. The earliest possible application of the gateway process would be to ‘roll it out’ across the regions on a program basis rather than it being triggered by specific applications. This approach would perform an upfront, strategic level assessment of mapped land and its capability to sustain mining or coal seam gas development and could ultimately lead to information that could support decisions as to whether particular types of development could be allowed or prohibited on this land. Strategic land (i.e. the land to which the gateway process applies) should reflect land values that are at risk, including: Strategic agricultural land (biophysical SAL and critical industry clusters), Agricultural infrastructure (such as irrigation), Water resources (both surface and groundwater), High priority biodiversity habitat, and Air quality and noise level thresholds. At a broad level, the criteria used in the gateway process should reflect the following principles: The decision-making rules for the gateway process should be clear, The criteria should be risk-based and reflect the threats to strategic values, The criteria should reflect any criteria in the aquifer interference policy that protects

19

priority water resource values, Cumulative impact thresholds (especially for air quality and noise) should be included, Incorporation of triple bottom line cost-benefit assessment. There was no consensus on the following issues: Whether there should be any no-go/exclusion zones identified. Some members argued that prohibitions would provide certainty to all stakeholders, whilst other members argued that prohibitions would not be based on science and would preclude industry innovation in mitigating impacts. Whether the gateway process should apply at the Exploration Licence stage The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure thanked all participants and advised that outcomes of the workshop would be reported to Cabinet as part of its decision on a way forward. CURRENT SITUATION The reference committee process appears to be at a standstill whilst awaiting Cabinet consideration. The Minister indicated a policy would be released for public comment early in the New Year. The major issue for Irrigators continues to be protection of all water sources including surface water supplies, shallow aquifers as well as deep aquifers from either depletion or lowering in quality. To achieve this there needs to be a rock solid aquifer policy that is rigidly enforced. This policy must cover prevention of damage to streams and aquifers from open cut and long wall mining and prime agricultural land sitting above shallow aquifers should be excluded from open cut mining as there is no known way these lands can be mined without destruction of aquifers that play a part in base flows to streams. Arthur Burns President, HVWUA 18/2/2012

Back to agenda

20

NSWIC NEW SOUTH WALES

IRRIGATORS’

COUNCIL

PO Box R1437

Royal Exchange NSW 1225

Tel: 02 9251 8466

Fax: 02 9251 8477

info@nswic.org.au

www.nswic.org.au

ABN: 49 087 281 746

NOTES FOR GENERAL MEETING

05 July 2012

21

4.2 Valley Updates

- Macquarie River Food and Fibre

Macquarie Valley Report – Update to the NSWIC Meeting,

5 July 2012

Comments:

Most of the valley’s 45,000 ha cotton crop is now off and some record yields have been achieved,

particularly in the areas north and north-west of Warren, however valley-wide, yield reports have

been mixed. Ginning is expected to continue for some months.

Following good inflows in March, the level in Burrendong Dam entered the Flood Mitigation Zone

(FMZ) and the valley’s general security and high security allocations were reset to 100% on the 1st

of April. The level in Burrendong Dam remains in the FMZ at around 102.5% at the end of June.

Given the allocation reset, around 100% of general security allocation will be carried over into

2012/13 and an opening AWD of around 28% is expected. The combined carryover and AWD

volumes will provide access to an average 128% of general security entitlement in 2012/13.

MRFF’s policy focus has included responding to the Draft Basin Plan and resulting inquiries, as

well as engaging in IPART’s review of water pricing, the NSW water shepherding policy, and

ensuring that the proposed NSW State Priority Projects and environmental works and measures

projects don’t result in perverse outcomes for Macquarie valley water users.

Recommendation:

That Council note the valley report.

Mike Bennett,

MRFF Delegate

MACQUARIE RIVER FOOD & FIBRE PO Box 1657, Dubbo NSW 2830

Phone: (02) 6884 9577 Fax: (02) 6882 8838 Chair: Michael Bennett – 0418 891 091

Executive Officer: Susan Madden – 0400 849 577 mrff@bigpond.com

22

- Murray Irrigation

Regional Update – Murray Irrigation Limited Local conditions After a wet summer, the Murray Irrigation area has had virtually no rainfall since early March with a total of only 32.8mm of rain recorded in Deniliquin since April. The dry conditions at the end of the season saw increased irrigation demand prior to the close of our system in mid-May. Winter crops have been sown; however, germination has been patchy due to the lack of rainfall. Water Availability and Use Storages in Hume and Dartmouth Dam are 95 and 87 percent respectively. According to the NSW Office of Water, the NSW General Security opening allocation is expected to be 35% of entitlement with an average of 40 percent of entitlement carried over in private accounts. Activities Murray Irrigation welcomed the election of Noel Graham to the position of Chairman in May following the resignation of Stewart Ellis from the Board. We are currently in the process of holding director elections to fill the vacancy left by Mr Ellis’ departure. Murray Irrigation Director Tim McKindlay has been appointed as our delegate to NSW Irrigators’ Council. Murray Irrigation completed submissions to the MDBA on the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office regarding trade of environmental water. Murray Irrigation has sent out the Network Services Plan (NSP), which describes the company’s services and proposed investments over the next five years, to all customers as required by the Water Charge Infrastructure Rules 2010 (Cth). The On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program Stage Two contracts have been rolled out and water transfers and work on individual projects has begun. Murray Irrigation has also held information sessions for customers interested in participating in the Round Three funding announced by the Government in May. There was a high level of interest shown and we are expecting a similar number of applicants, if not more, than participated in Round Two. We are continuing to work through the PIIOP contract with the Commonwealth and are preparing to roll out the associated work programs as soon as the contract has been finalised. Back to agenda

23

NSW Irrigators Council

Industry Representation

Namoi Water Study Ministerial Oversight Committee

July 2012 Progress to July 2012

The study is in its final stages with the Schlumberger Water Services report and recommendations are expected within the next month or two. The final public meetings in the North West have been set by Chair Peters for July 31, 2012. Given this expectation, there is no further update planned for the Council meeting, an update will be given at the next NSWIC sitting, but alternatively provide a final report when the study is done. Jon and Tim may be in a position to answer any intermediate questions from members on the day at your 05 July meeting. Bernie George

Back to Agenda