Scriven v Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation

The case of Scriven v Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation involves an appeal by Mr. S.C. Scriven against the decision to issue Waterworks Licence No. 49378, which allowed for the drilling of a sub-artesian bore for irrigation purposes on his property in Maroungle. Mr. Scriven, a grazier with limited knowledge of groundwater and irrigation farming, had applied for a licence to access a perceived substantial aquifer beneath his property. The appeal focused on the terms of the licence, particularly the allocation of water, which Mr. Scriven believed was unfairly low and would hinder the potential subdivision and sale of his property for irrigation farming. The legal issues in the case centred on whether the terms of the licence, particularly the allocation of water, were reasonable and whether the Chief Executive had acted within their powers under the Water Resources Act 1989.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, including the technical reports and expert opinions on the water resource and its potential. It was noted that the water quality was poor and the extent of the aquifer was unknown, which justified a conservative approach to the allocation of water. The court found that while the allocation for the bore was generous, it was not equitable to disregard Mr. Scriven's efforts in proving the existence of a potential resource. The court determined that a more equitable approach would be to increase the aggregate allocation for the entire property to 2,800 ML per water year, subject to beneficial use within a reasonable period. The court also varied certain terms of the licence to better reflect the potential for pioneering development and to ensure the sustainability of the water resource.

The outcome of the case was that the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Chief Executive to issue the waterworks licence was varied. The nominal allocation was reduced from 1,500 ML to 1,400 ML, and the aggregate allocation for Lot 1 was increased to 2,800 ML per water year. Certain terms of the licence were also amended to provide more flexibility in the event of the property being subdivided and sold, and to ensure the protection of neighbouring properties' rights to stock and domestic water. The court confirmed the inclusion of terms relating to the installation of a high-pressure air line and the requirement for observation bores, noting the assistance offered by the Department to mitigate the cost to Mr. Scriven.

The final orders of the court reflect the adjustments made to the terms of the waterworks licence to balance the interests of Mr. Scriven as a pioneer developer with the need to manage the water resource sustainably and equitably for all potential users.