The Thorley/Turnbull dilemma ...
How do you deal with the Gowrie Oakey Creek Irrigators Association?
The Toowoomba City Council Water Futures project runs their water supply dry.
Do you revoke their licences?
Can't do that without massive compensation?
What if they sue?
Any change to the Water Futures project to retain water supply to Gowrie Creek takes water away from Cooby Dam and Acland Coal (if they actually want it) and wrecks the financial fundamentals and viability of the project.
What a dilemma ...
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 9:30 AM
12 Comments:
The condition of their licences will not change, or be revoked. They will still have their licences. The lience gives the landholder the right to access the natural flows of the stream at certain flow trigger points. That right and condition will not change.
What will change is that the stream will not flow as regularly as it once did. Unless the landholders have a contactrural arrangement wil the TCC to provided water via the effluent flow, they do not have any legal basis to demand compensation.
Compensation is only payable when the conditions of a licence are altered. there will be no alteration of the consitions or rights of the licence.
8:52 AM, April 06, 2006
It may be different if this was a naturally occurring event which frustrates the terms of the licence.
Through the actions of the State government as licensor (or by the Council with the consent of the licensor), events occur which ensure that the licensee can no longer draw any water.
So it is the licensor frustrating the terms of the licence.
This should add up to compensation I'm afraid.
12:36 PM, April 06, 2006
Ahhh...no...a licence held by the landholder does not give any garrentee of supply, or volume, just the right to draw water from the stream when it flows. That right will not change.
The TCC will have a licence with EPA to discharge effluent into the creek, NRM issue licences to draw from the creek.
Unless the landholders have a contact with TCC to supply effluent, then they have no base for compensation claims. The licence rights they currently hold are still maintained.
The best that the landholders can do is make noise and lobby, but at the end of the day, there is no legal basis to claim compensation, and to go to court on that basis would just be a waste of their money.
1:52 PM, April 06, 2006
Actually, no.
It's not a question of guaranteed supply. Never mentioned any guarantees.
It's a question of the party issuing the licence (or a third party with their agreement) taking steps to frustrate the terms of the licence.
The principles of equity are available to a party in these situations to seek redress.
Hardly a waste of money - we're talking about livelihoods being lost because of the actions of a Mayor who will no doubt move out of town after the next election.
2:05 PM, April 06, 2006
The only terms of the licence are to be able to draw water when the stream flows. That's it. The actions of the Toowoomba City Council do not frastrate or change that term. Admitingly the stream will not flow as often as it use to, but the right to draw water does not change.
Do not get me wrong, I sympathise with the landholders. But that fact is they will have no legal basis to claim compensation, and neither the State or TCC have any obligation to them, in a legal sense.
Have a word to a lawer, and you will get the same answer. the licence does not give them a right to a volume, or condition of flow. It is a licence to perform an action.
2:21 PM, April 06, 2006
Once again, it's not a question of changing the terms. It's unilateral action by one party to redirect the flow of water, meaning that the licence is no longer worth the paper it is written on.
The courts are there to prevent abuse of process by governments and this is exactly what this would be.
Here, says the government, have a licence to draw water from the creek but in a couple of years we'll make sure there's no more water. Don't worry, you've still got the right to draw it - we've just ensured there's nothing to draw.
A first year law student can see the glaring hole in that argument!
2:37 PM, April 06, 2006
If I was the irrigators, I'd sue - drag the NRM and the TCC into court to protect your farms and your livelihood.
The attitude towards the irrigators is just another example of Thorley's arrogance.
She thinks it's her city and noone else matters.
She'll find out!
2:39 PM, April 06, 2006
Thorley has no respect for other people - only cares about what she wants.
2:43 PM, April 06, 2006
So if you have a contract with Thorley ISP for internet and they don't guarantee the download speed or your ability to connect every time. And then Thorley ISP thinks, I don't want them to connect at all - we'll let other people connect instead. They haven't changed your contract terms so you have no rights. Right?
2:49 PM, April 06, 2006
Let me see if I can make this easier for you to digest.
Just because the Dept of Transport issue you with a driver's licence, it does not oblige them to issue you with a car as well.
Now suppose you obtained a car through another person. Obtained this car free of charge mind you, with no contractual arrangement, just the grace of their generousity that you have the car and you are able to drive around.
Now suppose that peron decided to move away, or their circumstances changed that they now needed the car. they have no obligations to you to continue to provided the car, as their was no contract. An the licence youhold to be able to drive the car is still valid, issued by Dept of Transport, who are also not abliged to provided you with a car.
Does that make sense?
3:05 PM, April 06, 2006
Actually quite a silly example.
DNR supports TCC's decision to stop the water. DNR issues the licence. DNR is culpable.
There is no connection between the Dept of Transport and unindentified car-giver. There is a connection between the DNR and the TCC - read the NWC application.
3:32 PM, April 06, 2006
Anon, I hope you're not one of TCC advisers - if so they need new advisers.
3:34 PM, April 06, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home