Scriven v Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation

[1997] QLC 58

[1997] QLC 58

 

LAND COURT BRISBANE  8 MAY 1997

Re:   An appeal against a decision to issue

Waterworks Licence No. 49378 with certain terms - Water Resources Act 1989 -

A95-98

S.C. Scriven v.

Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation

(Hearing at St George) D E C I S I O N

On 17 October 1995, Waterworks Licence G-49378 was issued by the chief executive for a sub-artesian bore drilled under licence on 24 February 1995, located on Lot 1, Plan 19461, Parish of Maroungle, County of Belmore. The purpose of the works was “Irrigation” to supply the above described land, the nominal allocation being 1,500 ML.

The licence was issued to Mr S.C. Scriven, the owner of property known as “Meribah”, which straddles the Balonne Highway about 22 km west of St George. The northern severance of the property has been surveyed as Lot 1 and the southern severance as Lot 2 on Plan 195461. Lot 1 contains an area of 2,902 ha and Lot 2, 4,118 ha.

Mr Scriven appealed against the decision of the chief executive to

issue the licence to include the following terms:

“4.051.The aggregate nominal allocation of this and all other bores supplying the same associated real property shall be 1500 megalitres per water year and the proportion of the nominal allocation which may be used in any water year (announced allocation) shall be as approved by the Chief Executive.

4.100.Should the real property associated with this bore be sold in part or in whole, the allocation shall be redistributed, reduced or revoked in a manner determined by the Chief Executive.

6.6.In the event of the supply of stock and domestic water on a neighbouring property being unduly affected as a result of irrigation from this bore, the licensee shall supply to the owner of the property so affected, at no cost to such owner, sufficient water to meet the reasonable requirements of the stock normally watered on that property.

6.7.The licensee shall install in the bore a high pressure air line of a type and in a manner approved by the Chief Executive to monitor the effect of pumping from the bore.

SPEC01.Observation bores drilled to at least the bottom of the production aquifer/s sequence and constructed using 50 mm   UPVC, gravel packed and suitably developed are required to be installed for each production bore. The number of observation bores required will be determined by the Chief Executive and will be of sufficient number to adequately monitor the effect of extraction of the water table.”

Mr Scriven is a grazier with no experience in irrigation farming and limited knowledge of technical matters associated with groundwater for irrigation of crops. He has developed a strong belief that underlying his property is a huge aquifer which extends for a considerable external distance and which has the potential to provide a water resource large enough to create a new irrigation area. That belief, it seems, stems from the volume of water observed when a stock and domestic bore was drilled on Lot 2 in about 1980 and also on the opinion of a Mr Gebbett, a drilling contractor whose company “has drilled and explored extensively over the Condamine, Gwydir, Namoi, McQuarrie and Lachlan alluvial aquifer systems for a period of 30 years”. In a letter addressed to Mr Scriven, dated 18 September 1996, no doubt for the purpose of being produced at the hearing of this appeal, Mr Gebbett advised, inter alia, as follows:

“    The drilling we have carried out in the area has proved alluvial deposits to a depth of some 120 metres, containing thick sand aquifers capable of yielding water at up to 120 l/sec from a properly constructed bore, at six locations approximately in a line NE to SW over 65 km, and including your property....

We would suggest that the evidence to date supports the view that an ancestral river channel system exists over that distance and, it follows, it must extend both ways.”

Mr Gebbett was not called to give evidence. It seems that Mr Scriven first came into contact with him in about 1990 when his drilling company was engaged to replace the stock and domestic bore on Lot 2. In June 1994, Mr Scriven made application (No. 49376) to replace the purpose of that particular bore from stock watering and domestic use to irrigation and sought an annual allocation of 800 ML. At the same time three other applications were made (Nos. 49377, 49378 and 49379), all for sub-artesian bores and each with annual allocation of 3,645 ML, and each for the purpose of irrigation of 202 ha of cotton. Two of those applications (49378 and 49379) related to Lot 1 and the third to Lot 2 (49377).

There were no objections to the applications. Licences issued on 18 July 1994 in accordance with the applications except without a decision made on the volume of allocations to be attached to each bore.  Those licences

provided authorisation for the necessary drilling to commence.  Provision

for later determination of allocation was made by the endorsement of each licence with a term as follows:

“After the completed bore is tested to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive, he shall prescribe the nominal allocation.”

Mr Scriven had understood (or misunderstood) that the allocation for each bore would be based on its production capacity after pump testing. He alleges that this was the information given to him by the officer investigating the application.

The evidence is that two test bores were drilled on Lot 1 in July 1994. One was redrilled as Bore No. 49378, as I understand it, in early 1995. It was pump tested “at 48,000 GPH for 24 hours continuously”, with indication by Mr Gebbett that 50,000 GPH (or 5.4 ML per day) was sustainable with the pump set at 55 m. Mr Gebbett further advised that “higher pumping rates would be viable with a deeper pump setting” and “Water samples are being sent for full chemical analysis. In the meantime conductivity and previous tests indicate fair quality for flood irrigation use, including cotton.”

However, the water quality test obtained by the Department from the

Government Chemical Laboratory, returned with the following remarks: “... Unsuitable for irrigation (ID IL).                 Consult DPI.  Suitable for all stock.”

Similar remarks had followed earlier testing of samples from the bores on Lot 2. In effect, the evidence is that the water would be unsuitable, other than for crops with high salt tolerance (one of which is cotton). Further, the very high Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) would impact over time upon soil structure and could be expected to cause management problems with flood irrigation. The evidence is that best management practice for the growing of cotton would involve allowing areas to lie fallow after crop production.

After the four licences had issued, but before the production bore was drilled, the evidence is that Mr Scriven was actively seeking parties to become involved in a scheme to develop his property by subdivision into intensive irrigation farms. In October 1994 a further six applications for sub-artesian bores were made by Mr Scriven, three each of which were for Lot

1 and Lot 2. Each application sought individual annual allocations of 3,645 ML for 202 ha of cotton. For Lot 1 alone the allocations sought then totalled 18,225 ML for 1,010 ha of cotton. That equated 18 ML/ha when the average irrigation requirement for the St George Irrigation Area was about

6.5 ML/ha for cotton.  Irrigation farms in that area range in size from 100

to 250 ha, before any aggregation of the original individual farms.

Mr Scriven’s hopes were dashed when, after the information provided to the Department on the testing of Bore 49378, that licence was modified to include the term 4.051.

Mr Scriven was able to accept that 1,500 ML allocation may have been reasonable for the one bore but limitation of the whole of Lot 1 to 1,500 ML was in his opinion destructive of its development potential. He felt that the officers of the Department with whom he had been dealing had misrepresented the facts of the matter and caused him to be placed in an untenable financial position. While Mr Scriven had suggested that a volume of 200,000 GPH could be pumped from a large enough bore (with efficient pumping), he had based everything he had applied for, he said, on the Department’s advice received and even reduction of the volume he had originally suggested. Mr Gebbett had not been paid the quite substantial cost of drilling the bore and it seems Mr Scriven’s commitment there relied on the property being subdivided into irrigation farms. If that was possible, the driller had been prepared to come to some arrangement involving exchange, or partial exchange, of land with irrigation potential.

It is quite clear that Mr Scriven had no intention of farming the land himself. He frankly admitted that he had no knowledge of farming or irrigation. His plan had been to value add to the limited grazing worth of the land through proving the water resource and exploitation of the perceived consequential subdivisional potential. He had been unable to interest any serious farmer in pioneering the farming development in the immediate locality unless he was able to offer at least 1,000 acres (404 ha) capable of being irrigated through allocation.

Counsel for the respondent chief executive had indicated at the outset that no decision had been made as to the technical witnesses to be called by the chief executive. However, the original investigation officer who had assisted Mr Scriven in the application for the licences for irrigation was available, as was the officer who had later become involved. Those officers, Mr G.E. Harth and Mr P.E. Macnamara were called by Mr Scriven.

Mr Harth, who is a Technical Officer (Drilling) with the Department of Natural Resources (as it is now) had recalled that Mr Scriven had told him that he had been considering subdividing his property into 500 ha lots for sale as irrigation units and he wanted enough water from each bore to grow

500 ha of cotton. When assisting Mr Scriven, he had advised that “it generally took about 6 ML of water to grow 1 ha of cotton in the St George Irrigation Area, but as his soil was lighter, it would take more than this

on his property.”  He had advised Mr Scriven, he said, that he could apply for whatever volume he wished but the final determination of a nominal allocation would depend upon the extent and available yield of the system which would need to be proved.     Mr Harth had prepared a report which was tendered.     He    stated  that the appellant’s property     is         underlain     by unconsolidated sediments of unknown origin but which in his experience are normally associated with flood plains and not with red mulga and box country (as is found on the appellant’s property).  He was as a consequence unsure of the geological origin and extent of the sediments in the area.       He told the Court that he had formed a personal theory, after consideration of satellite imagery, that there may have been some groundwater connection between the Maranoa and Balonne River systems, but that theory was not shared by others in the Department. Under cross-examination he agreed that the extent of the particular resource, its recharge source and rate of recharge    were  all  unknown.     Mr     Harth agreed    with  Mr    Scriven    that         the allocation sought for each bore had been calculated by him in attempting to assist Mr Scriven to complete the documentation.  He could not recall the actual criteria involved in the calculation except that he believed that it would have been related to the area proposed to be irrigated from each bore. He believed that the volume for which the applications had been made in each case had mistakenly been calculated on the basis of irrigation for 500 ha rather than the 500 acres (202 ha) as contained in the application.

While that does not explain the precise volume sought there is no other explanation before the Court.

After Mr Harth had been transferred to another district, Mr Macnamara took up duties as Senior Technical Officer (Drilling) at St George. The report he had prepared was also tendered. He stated that “Bore RN 49378 is conventional in its construction and does meet construction requirements, however I would have thought that wound wire screens would have been used to realise the full aquifer potential thereby enhancing the allocation prospects.” He had felt that it would have been important for him to have been present at the time the pump test was actually carried out because the issue of allocation involved the pump test results. He had been unable to attend however due to the insufficient notice given to him by Mr Scriven. The results with which he had been eventually provided contained limited information. “Drawdown and recovery figures were not available for interpretation by officers of this Department.” He had been advised of Mr Scriven’s belief that “the test was not as good as it could have been”. Mr Scriven had indicated that equipment problems and the frequency of the

taking  of  readings,  especially  during  the  recovery  phase,  might  have affected the test result.

Mr Macnamara stated in his report:

“The bore was only subjected to a 24 hour test, which is common for     developed groundwater areas where the hydraulic characteristic of the aquifer is known. In this instance where nothing is known of the aquifer system being tested, a pump test duration of at least 100 hours is normal.”

Mr Macnamara referred to several external inquiries which had been made relative to the subject bore details, as a result of Mr Scriven’s attempts to market the property. It is also seen as relevant that with respect to the resource in general, “activity has increased in the number of private individuals applying for licences to access the resource”. He had been told by Mr Scriven that he (Scriven) believed he was “in some way responsible for developing the resource and generating the interest in groundwater irrigation in the area”.

Mr Scriven had spoken during his evidence of being the subject of some derision for his beliefs about the groundwater resource and his efforts to prove those beliefs. Mr Macnamara had been aware that Mr Scriven believed that “most other licensees have been waiting to see the results of his exploits” and that he “should have priority as to volume of allocation for the resource”.

In determination of the allocation for this bore, Mr Macnamara set out the criteria adopted in consideration of the application. Although the usual formula for issue of allocations was said to have been 0.8 ML/ha of land overlaying known aquifer systems, a conservative approach was seen as being warranted when the subject aquifer had not been delineated in any form. A suitably conservative allocation was decided as being 0.5 ML/ha or 1,425 ML (which was based on 2,850 ha as contained in Mr Macnamara’s report). The application had sought irrigation supply for 202 ha of cotton and water requirement for this type of country had been “set” at 7 ML/ha (totalling 1,411 ML).   The safe pumping rate had been assessed by the

contractoras 1,986 ML/annum. Mr Macnamara’s report had concluded: “Bearing in mind that resource is not proven and that most groundwater   resources           (irrigation)  are             stressed,         and conservative annual allocation for Lot 1 on plan 195461, the real property associated with bore RN 49378 was determined at 1500 Ml. It was felt that this allocation would allow moderate development and subsequent proving of the resource.

It was further determined that licence no. B 49379 (issued) and application no’s 49389, 49393 and 49394 (to be issued) would be allowed     to be drilled and form a total nominal aggregate allocation of 1500 Ml/annum for Lot 1 on plan 195461.

This allowed for periods of peak demand during a watering season that may not be able to be serviced from one production bore.

Observation  bores	to  monitor  water  levels	for	production
extractions will be	a licence requirement.”

It is clear from Mr Macnamara’s report that the Department was concerned not to over allocate the available resource with the resultant stress either to quantity of supply or water quality which is common to most known/existing groundwater systems in the State. He saw the ability of the chief executive to vary either by increase or decrease of annual aggregate nominal allocation in any one water year to be relevant. There was potential, while there was a lack of installed works in the area, for the announced allocation for the subject works to allow use in excess of the aggregate nominal allocation “which could continue until such time as other prospective users develop, or until impact on the resource is apparent”.

Mr Macnamara had thought personally that one suggestion by the applicant during the investigation process to allow, with a suitably efficient pump, extraction up to 3,000 ML/year had some merit in testing the resource, but that would have been only for a limited period. In any event, that suggestion had not been accepted by his superior (Mr Wallwork). As far as both he and Mr Wallwork were concerned, the unknown nature of the resource was such that it had been reasonable to place conditions in the licence which would allow effective management of the resource. The licence was modified to include special conditions relating to installation of observation bores. Similar conditions now appear on “all licences for bores applying for and issued with substantial allocation”.

Evidence for the chief executive was given by Mr A.T. Wallwork, Engineer, who was the District Manager (Water Resources) in St George during the period when Mr Harth and then Mr Macnamara were investigating the licence application, its issue and assessment of allocation. Mr Wallwork clearly does not share the applicant’s enthusiasm relative to the extent or quality of the resource which underlies Mr Scriven’s overall property. In his tendered report are found the following passages under the heading

“Resource Evaluation”:

“From  the bores drilled for Mr Scriven and others in the immediate area of Lots 1 and 2, the resource that Mr Scriven is hoping to develop can be defined as a semi-confined alluvial aquifer, consisting of mostly fine to coarse sand with little gravel.   From the pump test conducted by Condamine Drilling Pty Ltd for Mr Scriven on Bore RN 49378, water is available in the strata described as white, fine to coarse sand.

The groundwater resource in this general area is very ill

defined. The extent of the alluvial aquifer is unknown at this time. From the drilling logs on adjoining properties the water bearing alluvium appears to be deposited in a North South direction, is not widespread and any water that has been intercepted is of very poor quality. It would appear however that the alluvial sediments do underlie most of Lot 1.

In assessing the long term potential of an alluvial aquifer to sustainably supply water, one of the important pieces of data is the source of any recharge to the aquifer and the average annual volume of that recharge. If the recharge source or quantity is unknown then the long term viability of extractions from any aquifer is unknown.

There are several possible sources of recharge to this aquifer, including:

·from rainfall over thousands of year;

·from the Balonne or Maranoa Rivers during floods or as a result of the construction of Beardmore Dam;

·Leakage from artesian bores drilled through this aquifer, to deeper artesian aquifers, over the past one hundred years.”

Mr Wallwork confirmed that the Department’s prime objective was management of the groundwater resources vested in its jurisdiction “to ensure the sustainability of supply and to maintain water quality within industry acceptable parameters”. Nevertheless, he saw it as pertinent to note that “due to the extent of prolonged exploitation, most if not all of the major groundwater systems are suffering some form of stress either to quantity of supply or water quality”.

In conjunction with Mr Macnamara’s investigations, Mr Wallwork had seen it as a useful guide in assessment of groundwater systems with unknown recharge potential, or systems which have not been developed to any extent, “to look at the volume of allocation assigned per ha of land overlying the aquifer in other systems with more information about the resource”. He said that in other systems throughout the State “the allocations range from 0.25 ML per ha on the Burdekin floodplain, 0.6 ML per ha in the Callide Valley,

0.8 ML/ha in Oakey Creek alluvium, 3.5 ML per ha in the more high yielding areas of the Pioneer Valley in Mackay and between 0.8 and 1.5 ML per ha in the Condamine Valley on the Darling Downs”. Mr Wallwork confirmed Mr Macnamara’s comments relevant to the potential for an announced allocation beyond the aggregate nominal allocation and “should development continue to the stage of requiring extraction of water from bore RN 49378" and “as there are no other installed groundwater irrigation bores in the area”. This could continue until other prospective users develop, or until impact on the resource is apparent.

Mr Wallwork was concerned that the poor quality of the water would

impact on the soil under cultivation within several (three to four) years, to the degree that it “would be expected to eventually render the soil unsuitable for agriculture and possibly even grazing”.

Grounds of Appeal

Mr Scriven’s objection to the specific terms in the licence are discussed as follows:

4.051.   In summary Mr Scriven believed that he had been misled into believing that the pump capacity as tested on each bore would equate the allocation he could expect to receive. He felt the allocation of 1,500 ML for the whole of Lot 1 destroyed the subdivisional potential.

Mr Wallwork believed that the applications for allocation were totally unrealistic compared to water usage in the St George Irrigation Area. Mr Wallwork believed that it was not the Department’s responsibility to ensure that Mr Scriven had enough water for subdivision of the property. Instead it was the Department’s responsibility to fairly, equitably and sustainably distribute the water resource under Mr Scriven’s and other properties.

Mr Scriven asked the question - “Why was I not told?”, that his applications were probably unrealistic relative to volume. It seems to me after listening to the evidence overall that if he has placed himself in financial jeopardy, he should not lay the blame on others. On his own admission, while his confidence in the extent of the resource may eventually be proved warranted or otherwise, he was clearly inexperienced in what he set out to do - prove the existence of a resource. If there were “doubting Thomases”, he has at least shown that a resource does exist, to the extent, as I understood the evidence, that others are waiting in the wings to possibly capitalise on his groundwork.

Proving the resource was but the first step, however, in realising a dream of turning a large area of land with highest and best use of low intensity grazing into a highly productive irrigated farming area, and at the same time reap the benefits, not from working the land, but by selling it for its highest and best use.

What Mr Scriven has done has been to show that one production bore, on limited testing, can produce in excess of 200,000 litres (not gallons) per hour, extrapolating to near 2,000 ML/ per annum, if it was capable of being pumped continuously. Through what he says was lack of advice, the test was not extended to allow a more meaningful analysis of the resource. The fact is that was not done. Not unnaturally, he has not been able to prove the extent of the resource, the source of any recharge or the volume of recharge.

It is seen as both reasonable and prudent for the chief executive to

take a cautious approach to the potentiality of an unproved resource. It has been shown that the water quality is poor, although that does not mean that its use should be denied, but rather treated with caution in terms of farm management. If the extent of the resource is limited as suspected by the chief executive, then the question of potential over-allocation is a concern which must be addressed. The chief executive has done that, by taking what was seen to be a “conservative” approach. Nevertheless, while I have formed the opinion that the allocation for this particular bore is, if anything, generous, it also seems to me that it is not necessarily equitable for Mr Scriven’s exploration efforts to go unrecognised in the sense that a previously untapped potential irrigation resource has to be shared equally on the basis of the surface area overlying the resource.

It may well be that a nominal allocation of .5 ML/ha will prove reasonable once delineation of the underground resource is known. However, it also seems that if a resource with some potential does exist, it is in the interests of the community as a whole for that resource to be better understood and its initial development encouraged rather than hindered. It does not seem an appropriate consideration that the applicant is a quasi entrepreneur and not necessarily the end user or that he may profit from his initial speculation. It also does not seem reasonable to expect that pioneering development would be encouraged by the willingness of the resource manager to allow favourable allocation in excess of nominal allocation only during the development stage, then to take it away after the farming infrastructure has been put in place.

It seems to me that a nominal allocation of 2,800 ML/per annum for Lot 1, shared between the potential production bores, if beneficially used within a reasonable development period, might encourage development of some significance (in the order equivalent to the cultivation of 440 ha of cotton). Such development might in itself be seen within the industry to remain speculative and still not attract the type of developer sought by Mr Scriven. If that is the case and the allocation is not beneficially used within a reasonable period, as determined by the chief executive, and alternative demand exists, it would be seen then as reasonable that reallocation should take place. The chief executive has powers to amend, vary, cancel, revoke or suspend a licence.

Such equivalent nominal allocation would not be seen to be a base on which other applications to exploit the resource might be expected to be considered unless the role of “pioneering development” does not eventuate within such reasonable period on the subject Lot 1.  For example, it would

not be seen to be the basis on which allocation for Lot 2 in isolation (although owned by Mr Scriven) might be determined.

For that reason the number of licence applications made by Mr Scriven for both Lots 1 and 2, indicate a lack of realism or understanding of the need for the chief executive to properly manage a total resource.  It may be a different matter if development proceeds over what may be expected to be a long period, to prove the resource which the appellant and others believe to exist, as well as its ability to be used productively.

In summary I see it as reasonable that the waterworks licence be amended to provide a nominal allocation of the reduced volume of 1,400 ML per water year but for the term 4.051 to be amended to increase the aggregate allocation over the whole of Lot 1 to 2,800 ML per water year, subject as always to beneficial use within a development period considered reasonable by the chief executive.

Term 4.100

Mr Scriven appeals against this term for the reason that if the land was sold he would want an assurance that the allocation would go with the land.

Mr Wallwork advised that it is the present policy of the Department upon the subdivision of land and before its sale that the landholder should nominate where the allocation attached to the property should reside. However this approach was seen to have certain restrictions with regard to groundwater where the principle that needs to be applied was to ensure that the water is not concentrated into a specific area so that the resource can be sustained and no other landholders are disadvantaged. With subdivision of the property Mr Wallwork saw the potential for the balance of Lot 1 to effectively remain dry, i.e. without allocation from the same source.

It seems to me that while the general principle is reasonable, any redistribution, reduction or revocation relating to the allocation for this particular bore would need to be based on the facts at the time and the amended aggregate allocation for the whole of Lot 1 which has resulted from this appeal. It seems to me that the concern of the appellant should be satisfied by amending the condition to read the allocation “may” be etc., rather than “shall” be etc.

Term 6.006

Mr Scriven says that at the time that the appeal was lodged no-one else was “on this stream - if any neighbouring properties choose to tap into the source we have discovered - why should we be penalised?” As Mr Wallwork pointed out the term is to protect the neighbouring property’s right to

stock and domestic water from the same source. He sees the potential for irrigation bores at certain times to impact heavily on the more shallow stock and domestic bores.

This term seems perfectly reasonable to me and should not be amended in my opinion.

Term 6.007

Mr Scriven says that when the application was made there was no mention of any high pressure air line.

Mr Wallwork says the inclusion of the term would provide Mr Scriven, as well as the Department, with valuable information on the resource utilisation and the efficiency of the bore. As the test holes that had been drilled prior to the drilling of the production bore had not been equipped to enable the water levels to be monitored (because according to Mr Scriven he was not asked to) Mr Wallwork says the air line would be the cheapest option to enable a water level measurement to be taken. Mr Wallwork explained the technical aspects of the installation of the line and the nominal cost involved. He said that the Department would supply the air line if the cost of such an installation was of concern to Mr Scriven.

I see no reason why this condition should be varied.

Term SPEC 01

Mr Scriven says that he would be agreeable to the clause if the cost was borne by the Department. He said the previous test holes could have been used for the purpose but there was no advice that they were required. He suggested the observation bores required under this term to be installed now would cost in the range of $3,500 to $5,000 each.

Mr Wallwork pointed out that the covering letter with the issue of the

bore licence contained the following paragraphs:

“With respect to the inclusion of an air line on the pump when installed as is required under Term No. 6.007 of the licence will suffice for use as observation purposes until such time as a drilling rig is established to install other production bores on the property. When this occurs, any of the test holes drilled and not developed as production bores can be completed as observations bores.

As was agreed to earlier, this Department will supply to you, free of cost the necessary 50 mm UPVC pipe and bore shields for the observation bores. Installation, supply of gravel packed material and development costs will be your responsibility. ...”

Mr Wallwork advised that the observation bores would therefore not cost $3,500 to $5,000 as suggested by Mr Scriven because they could be installed at little cost to himself as the test holes have to be drilled in any event.

In the circumstances of this unknown resource, it seems reasonable to me that the term be included in the licence, particularly as Mr Scriven has been offered some assistance with regard to the cost.

Summary of Determination

The appeal is allowed.

The decision of the chief executive to issue Waterworks Licence No.

49378 is varied as follows:

(1)The nominal allocation as contained within the licence is amended by reducing 1,500.0 ML to 1,400.0 ML.

(2)Term 4.051 is varied to the effect that the nominal allocation shall increase from 1,500 ML per water year to 2,800 ML per water year the remaining wording of the term to remain as issued.

(3)Term 4.100 is varied by omitting the word “shall” and replacing that word with “may”.

(4)Term 6.006. The decision of the chief executive to issue the licence with this term is confirmed.

(5)Term 6.007. The decision of the chief executive to issue the licence with this term is confirmed.

(6)Term SPEC 01. The decision of the chief executive to issue the licence with this term is confirmed.

RE WENCK

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT