Water Secuirty Advisory Group
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OurWaterSecurity Minutes of the Water Security Advisory Group Date 25 November 2014 Location Civic Reception Room Start Time 5:00pm Finish Time 8:35pm Chair Paul Gregory GROUP MEMBERS Stakeholder Groups Primary Member Present Alternate Member Present Cairns Regional Council Cr Bob Manning Neil Quinn Cairns Regional Council Cr Richie Bates Cairns Regional Council Cr Steve Brain Cairns Regional Council Peter Tabulo CRC Water and Waste Paul Utting Cr Tom Gilmore Mareeba Shire Council (arrived 5:15pm) DNRM Shannon Dempster Glynis Orr DEWS Kirsten Shelly Darren Thompson WTMA / DEHP Andrew Maclean Bruce Jennison MDWSS LAMC Joe Moro Scott Dixon Advance Cairns Trent Twomey Mark Matthews Adam Gowlett UDIA Cairns (dept. 7:30pm) CAFNEC Angelika Ziehrl Bruce Corcoran MRACRP (arrived 5:22pm) Cairns River Improvement Trust Rob Lait Cairns YEA! Yuriko Nakachi-Monaei Cairns YEA! Mani Sunai-Norris RAPA Steve Purcell General Community Allan Dale General Community Suzanne Gibson General Community Jeff Pezzuti ASSOCIATE MEMBERS Group Member Present Queensland Health Andrew D’Addona Mulgrave Central Mill Peter Flanders Stanwell – Barron Hydro Michael Sinclair GBRMPA Phil Laycock Sunwater Charlie Martens Canegrowers Richard Hesp PROJECT TEAM CAIRNS REGIONAL COUNCIL CONSULTANTS Jon Turner Manager Infrastructure Pat Nixon Jacobs Executive Engineer – Neil Ben Millar Gilbert & Sutherland Planning Sutherland Coordinator Regulatory Mark Wuth Erin Holton Gilbert & Sutherland & Systems Support Owen Droop OD Hydrology Marsden Jacob Peter Jacob Associates #4328109v13 OurWaterSecurity Meeting No. 10 – 25 November 2014 Minutes of the Water Security Advisory Group Item What Who Noted / Action Declare Meeting Open (5:00pm) Welcome to Country conducted by Chair. 1 Chair Noted. Apologies noted. Alternates attending noted. Previous Meeting Minutes (5:06pm) Minutes of Meeting 2 Minutes of Meeting No. 9 taken as read and adopted Chair No. 9 adopted. with no amendments. Introduction to Meeting Purpose (5:07pm) Neil Sutherland (NS) provided an introduction to the purpose of the meeting, as shown on the attached Neil 3 slides. Noted. Sutherland NS introduced Peter Jacob and Owen Droop to present the outcomes from the preliminary hydro- economic assessment. Outcomes from Preliminary Hydro-Economic Assessment (5:12pm) Owen Droop (OD) introduced the agenda item with Owen reference to previous presentations and discussions Droop 4 on the Level of Service (LOS) criteria, targets and & Noted. framework established with the WSAG. The LOS Peter framework underpins the hydro-economic analysis. Jacobs Peter Jacob (PJ) presented outcomes from the preliminary hydro-economic assessment. Unpacking the NMOA Outcomes (5:56pm) Erin Holton (EH) presented an itemised breakdown 5 Erin Holton Noted. on the NMOA outcomes, as requested at the previous meeting. Introduction to Strategy Refinement Process (6:00pm) Neil 6 NS provided an introduction to the strategy Noted. Sutherland refinement process, as shown on the attached slides. WSAG Strategy Refinement Process (6:15pm) WSAG members individually provided feedback and articulated views about various elements and strategies from the perspective of their respective stakeholder groups. Key views understood to be as follows: o AZ: Generally opposed to taking water from Mulgrave River without understanding potential Project Team to present risk to the environment and flooding of new Neil analysis of Strategy H 7 areas, such as for Nullinga Dam. Sutherland and Strategy I at next JP: Community needs guaranteed water for the & Pat Nixon o meeting. future – if water is wealth, then stored water is a bank to deal with climate variability. If Nullinga Dam is the identified option, then it needs to be supported and an understanding of financing options and implementation plan progressed. As a short term option, would support either the Mulgrave River or Barron River. o JM: MDIA users in general neither oppose nor #4328109v13 Page 2 of 8 OurWaterSecurity Meeting No. 10 – 25 November 2014 Minutes of the Water Security Advisory Group Item What Who Noted / Action support Nullinga Dam and do not accept, on information presently available, that it and Tinaroo Falls Dam will operate in tandem. MDIA users hold concerns about who would pay (potential cost impacts on users) and about switching allocations in relation to water quality and reliability. Switching of allocations would have to be voluntary and not enforced or mandatory. o RL: CRIT’s charter is to maintain the physical integrity of watercourses, and no particular option would appear to contravene that objective. Personal opinion is to take “security” seriously, and as a groundwater practitioner it is heartening to hear from the MRACRP that it considers there is “room to move” in relation to taking groundwater from the Mulgrave Aquifer. o NQ: Reiterated there are two basic assumptions underpinning the strategy development: population forecasts, which is anticipated to increase substantially; and, Levels of Service needs to be maintained. o PT: As a CEO of an organisation needing to recommend a way forward in relation to water security, he would feel the recommendation needs to be in full control of the remit of the organisation to deliver it in time, and for CRC that remit would be within the CRC Local Government Area. However, that view would not preclude advocating for Nullinga Dam or MIS losses, for example, but elements outside the CRC LGA would not factor highly. o TG: Supports view expressed by PT (CEO) and, in his view, CRC should take options available to it as short-term elements. Then, look at maximizing storage in new dams to support a business case to government. It has to be a regional strategy for security in a sensible and achievable way. o AG: Water security should allow there to be no restrictions on economic development potential. As there appears to be an appetite at Commonwealth and State governments for new dams, the opportunity should be taken. o SP: For any option progressed, Traditional Owners concerns about cultural heritage and the values of it need to be understood, managed and protected. Very concerned about coal seam gas projects related to the area of the proposed Nullinga Dam, undue stress on environmental flows, and potential intrusion of saltwater into the Mulgrave Aquifer. o BC: Lowest economic cost shouldn’t be the be #4328109v13 Page 3 of 8 OurWaterSecurity Meeting No. 10 – 25 November 2014 Minutes of the Water Security Advisory Group Item What Who Noted / Action all and end all – minimizing waste and losses needs to be first priority accompanied by realistic pricing. Mulgrave Aquifer is the highest risk of all options put forward and the MRACRP hold residual concerns over impacts on low flows. If MRACRP had to choose, it would prefer the Mulgrave River to the Mulgrave Aquifer, but stresses that both have a seasonal supply risk. If pushed into a corner, MRACRP would choose a dam over damaging coastal rivers. Overall position of the MRACRP and local community is the seasonal risk of surface water from the Mulgrave River is not appreciated. o SG: Priority would be to save water where we can and holds concerns about the loss of water reported in general. It would seem that lost water could be saved before spending significant money on a dam. The Mulgrave River, and potentially the Mill entitlement, would seem to be available resources and economically so. o CM: While not speaking officially on behalf of SunWater, users of the MDIA (irrigators) hold concerns about Cairns eroding security of the quantity and quality of water available in the irrigation scheme. o KS: Supportive of the process, which will lead to a robust strategy allowing Council to fulfill its responsibility and provide a business case to State Government. Short-term options within the next 5y should be bedded down now, and longer-term options should be subject to pre- feasibility studies and the like. o BJ: Barron River Intake proposal has been permitted by WTMA, subject to monitoring and management conditions. WTMA would be cautious about the Mulgrave Aquifer. Regarding the Mulgrave River, is trusting of the water resource planning process and appreciates the flexibility of it as an option. Where WTMA is generally satisfied a Barron River intake can be managed, an intake on the Mulgrave River is a bit different due to its longer downstream ecosystem. NS and Pat Nixon (PN) facilitated strategy refinement process. Based on views articulated by WSAG members, strategy elements were categorised into: their ability to be delivered into the near term (<5y), have a high level of certainty of water supply quantum, are sources that Council has a high degree of control and / or influence over regarding their implementation and contribute to the #4328109v13 Page 4 of 8 OurWaterSecurity Meeting No. 10 – 25 November 2014 Minutes of the Water Security Advisory Group Item What Who Noted / Action water security of the system (Category A); their merit for further investigation and progression in the mid- term (>5y) (Category B); their ability to provide contingency supply (Category C); and, those to be reconsidered in the mid to longer term (Category D). The agreed categorisation of options is shown in the attached table. Based on the categorisation, it was agreed that two (2) strategies would be subject to further analysis (hydro-economic and NMOA). The strategies are summarised in the attached tables and the analysis outcomes will be presented at the next meeting. The WSAG will consider the outcomes