Property Rights Australia
Ph. 0749356231
The Secretariat
SCER
28th February, 2013.
Submission of Property Rights Australia into the National Harmonised Regulatory Framework-CSG
Property Rights Australia was formed in 2003 to protect a range of property rights of individuals and enterprises. It operates primarily in Queensland but has members in all states. It aims to promote fair treatment of landowners in their dealings with government, other businesses and the community.
Our philosophy is that if the community or other businesses want our resource or to disrupt our use of our resource for any other purpose then a fair price must be paid at unsterilized value.
Property Rights Australia appreciates that the committee is listening to community concerns and is hopeful that a culture of continuous improvement will occur in an industry that has been hastily approved and implemented.
We wish to comment on the area of water issues.
“Make good” provisions and options for co-produced water
Any substitute for a continuous supply of reliable underground water whose propertiesare known for irrigation, stock and domestic supply and community water is an inferior option. This applies to solutionscovered by “make good” arrangements and other substitutes.
“Make good” where it is the only option should also be available to users, such as neighbours, who have no arrangements with CSG companies but whose aquifers, springs and surface water or vegetation may be affected by CSG operations. The problem of landowners who have no CSG company operating on their land but whose water supplies have been affected exists and is set to be a growing concern which needs to be addressed.
How “make good” arrangements will work and the difficulty or otherwise of accessing them is, as yet, untested. The community will be watching with interest to see if such measures are implemented in a timely and efficient manner with sufficient, quality water with a minimum of fuss to all adversely affected water users
Some landowners are currently attempting to negotiate what form “make good” arrangements may take but CSG companies, so far, are refusing to spell out how arrangements will be actioned.
Property Rights Australia has reasonable concerns that some landowners may in the future be left without water for an unacceptable period of time while disputes are settled. In agriculture and particularly in livestock production timely access to water is the key ingredient to production.
It seems obvious at this stage that virtually 100% of CSG water will need to be treated. Almost all of it as well as having significant quantities of salts have variable quantities of heavy metals,naturally occurring BTEX chemicals and various radioactive substances. These have the potential to damage crops, livestock, human health and communities if not dealt with appropriately. The limitations of reverse osmosis also need to be acknowledged.
The Queensland Government would like to see aquifer reinjection but this should be regarded as experimental and requiring a great deal more research at this stage. Care needs to be taken to ensure that useful aquifers are not being contaminated with any of the above substances. Water reinjected into an aquifer for human consumption or agriculture must meet Australian Drinking Water Standards.
Storage ponds can and have caused damage in the past. There are problems with seepage and overtopping. Some companies are experimenting with improved systems and farmers whose land, crops or pasture is damaged should be compensated for ongoing loss. This should encouragecontinuing research and development into improved systems and provide justice for affected landowners.Storage ponds need to be decommissioned in a way that does not cause damage to a landholding nor the environment and be properly rehabilitated in accordance with the wishes of the landowner i.e. species selection should be their prerogative.
It is often stated that virtual reinjection should be used to offset existing water entitlement. It needs to be recognised and ensured that this includes water for stock and domestic use which often does not come with a formal entitlement but is generally allowed for in various pieces of legislation.
Discharge into surface waters
Release of untreated water into surface water is likely to gradually increase concentrations of toxic trace elements which will be mobilised by future weather events.
Permits have been issued in the past to allow large volumes of toxic water into water courses. This should not be allowed in the future.
Any water which will result in runoff such as dust suppression needs to be treated.
The draft policy paper discusses assessment and accounting of groundwater based on numerical groundwater modelling or water balance approach. The only accurate way to measure co-produced water is by measurement and most companies regularly measure the amount of water produced and this should be reported.
The Queensland Water Commission will be producing a study of the cumulative impacts of CSG extraction in the Bowen and Surat Basins every three years. This report is welcomed but we would hope that action can be taken quickly if problems become obvious in local areas.
Although industrial uses of the salts derived from co-produced water are being touted the only real solution offered so far has been disposal in a registered disposal pit. There is no public knowledge of any such disposal pits and the Murray Darling Basin does not want such pits in its catchment and recommendations are that they not be placed near any agricultural land. By the time all sensitive catchments and areas are ruled out few areas remain.
Loss of benefits of GABSI
The Queensland Government and landowners have spent many years and millions of dollars capping bores and replacing bore drains with enclosed piping. This has cost individual landowner tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are fears that the sacrifices made by these landowners will be wasted if aquifers are depleted regardless.
Co-existence
Co-existence seems to be expected by all authorities including these draft guidelines. It is our view that co-existence and in some cases sequential use is not always possible and this is particularly the case in premium agricultural areas where precision farming is practised with delicate, high quality aquifers. Not only is water depletion a problem but subsidence, roads, well pads and other infrastructure cause impediments to machinery and the natural water flow which has created these quality soils.
Many of the problems encountered by CSG companies were of their own making. The attitude of many contractors and sub-contractors was that their interest was superior. Little regard was paid to crops, livestock or water nor the amenity of families living on the land. Specific questions were not answered and often compensation offered was inadequate. Some companies had particularly bad reputations for a bad attitude and bad manners. PRA hopes that those problems are behind us.
Joanne Rea
Chair
Property Rights Australia
Ph. 07 49356231
Mob. 0407143664