Add Category
A Northern Territory government minister was in an "impossible position" when she re-granted Australia's largest water license because not even "basic" information about the natural resource was known at the time, the Supreme Court has heard.
Key points:
- Traditional owners say they are fighting the licence for their children
- The NT Supreme Court heard baseline data for the region did not exist
- Barrister for traditional owners allege decision to re-grant licence went against Water Act
Traditional owners from a stretch of remote desert in Central Australia's Barkly region are fighting to overturn a water licence granted to horticultural venture, Fortune Agribusiness, which wants to develop one of the nation's biggest fruit farms.
The company was last year given the right to eventually extract 40,000 megalitres of water a year from Singleton Station, four hundred kilometres north of Alice Springs.
The Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation is suing Territory Families Minister, Kate Worden – who re-granted the license last year after a review – over her decision, and on Wednesday their Barrister Chris Young QC told the Supreme Court in Alice Springs that "some of the most basic, fundamental things about this water resource is not known".
Traditional owners fear the massive extraction of water could lower the water table outside the boundaries of the project, and potentially destroy up to 40 sacred sites that rely on this groundwater.
Speaking outside court, Warumungu traditional owner for an area near Singleton Station, Sandra Jones, said she was there to fight for her community to be "considered" by decision makers.
"In 20 years' time we don't want to see there's not water in our country," she said.
"Let us leave something behind for our next generation to come."
Decision 'irrational', lawyers argue
Justice Peter Barr heard evidence that monitoring programs and significant amounts of data were required to assess how the water licence could affect the health of sacred sites.
"If at the moment [a sacred tree's roots] presently contact water, and if it is predicted that the water in the aquifer will drop by say 15 meters at this location, then there will come a point in time when those roots will no longer be in contact with the water," he said.
To understand this process, Mr Young said, monitoring was required.
Mr Young referred to evidence from an expert review panel tasked with evaluating the licence who found this "basic" data did not yet exist.
He alleged Ms Worden's decision was "irrational" because without this baseline data, he said it wasn't possible to know the licence adequately protected the environment.
Largest water licence in Australia
The court heard that, according to documents prepared by the Northern Territory's environment department for Ms Worden, the water licence is the largest ever granted to a single proponent in Australia.
Mr Young conceded that while the size of the licence was not a complicating legal factor, it was important in understanding its "complexity".
Likewise, Mr Young argued the decision to re-grant the licence was not in line with the territory's water act, which puts the onus on the government to assess the water resource before awarding a water licence.
Some of these licence conditions required Fortune Agribusiness to complete a detailed assessment of the water resource.
The court also heard that by placing that assessment in the hands of the proponent, it violated the Water Act.
Company calls horticultural project 'nationally significant'
The company has previously described the $150 million horticultural project as "nationally significant", announcing plans to irrigate 3,500 hectares of land to grow onions, rockmelons, citrus, grapes and other crops.
The Northern Territory Government has said the licence represents just 0.03 per cent of the modelled total resource, and only two thirds of the water allocated for development in the region.
Previously the government has also said the licence's staging would protect the environment by giving analysts time to assess how the licence was affecting the water table.
The court heard this modelling has been disputed by experts in the field and that the expert review panel recommended a longer first stage than is currently in place.
The hearing is expected to last three days and will hear from lawyers representing the Arid Lands Environment Centre, the government, and Fortune Agribusiness.