The long-delayed Arm End golf course and associated recycled water pipeline has not moved closer to any actual construction even with the announcement of a federal government grant of $5 million. There are now three connected projects – golf course, pipeline and a water treatment plant – and one proponent under different names. The golf course proposed for Arm End reserve was approved in 2016 and the pipeline in 2019, both by the Clarence City Council. Neither has commenced. The pipeline was approved to supply water from the Blackmans Bay Sewage Treatment Plant to irrigate the golf course.
Although the proponent tried to interest locals in buying excess water this seems to have been unsuccessful. Now the proponent wants to treat the water from class B (as it comes out of the sewage treatment plant) to class A. The assessment of the treatment plant by the EPA began in July 2020 but there has not been any public consultation yet.
The Australian government via Assistant Minister for Industry Development, Senator Jonathon Duniam, announced on 11 August 2021 that $5 million from an irrigation funding program was ‘committed’ to the South Arm water pipeline. The website for the funding program referred to the funds being used for water treatment. No information has been released about what specifically the funds are to be used for. It is unknown whether the funding has been allocated yet – Minister Duniam said it was ‘committed’. A letter sent to Minister Duniam in August remains unanswered. We provided a series of questions for the Australian Greens to ask the government in the Senate. While the answers on a number of questions were evasive – including avoiding answering questions relating to the funding possibly assisting the golf course rather than agriculture – there was some new information. The state government was the applicant, showing how supportive it is of these projects. As of 26 November 2021, no funding has been provided. The conditions for providing the funding include confirmation of construction timeframes and ‘funding partner contributions’ (including from the state government, which is a requirement for this funding program).
While there seems to be no reason for treating water to Class A standard for most agricultural uses, and potentially reasons for retaining it as Class B (high nutrient levels), Class A water would be very beneficial for use on a golf course. The golf course permit includes a condition that public access must be guaranteed at all times and class A water will probably mean it does not need to be closed during and immediately after irrigation, whereas Class B probably does.
The proponent has stated that they require only 24% of the water that they propose to buy and treat but still claim that the $5 million grant was assessed entirely on the basis of the benefit of the water for agriculture. The EPA website was recently updated and includes a clear statement that it will assess the ‘application of re-use water for the South Arm recreational area’ as well as the treatment plant.
This is important because the use and impact of the irrigated water was not considered by the council and the EPA consultation process is the community’s first opportunity to make comments on the impact irrigation will have on the reserve. We have significant concerns about two spotted handfish populations at Arm End, as Class A water is still nutrient-rich and irrigating the reserve will cause run-off of sediment and nutrient-laden water. This is a particular problem in areas with steep cliffs near Mary Ann Bay. While we wait for the EPA process in relation to the treatment plant and use of irrigation water at Arm End, we have been corresponding with the council in an attempt to have it enforce the permit conditions for the pipeline. These conditions were won in the planning appeal in 2019 taken by Robyn McNicol and supported by the TCT.
The key concern we have is that the handfish population at Halfmoon Bay could be severely impacted by drilling that is required to install the pipeline under the bed of the bay. We understand that the permit conditions require test drilling before installation of the pipeline to determine whether the rock type is appropriate for pipe installation.
The council advises that the proponent has done one test drill on land and that is sufficient. We do not agree with that interpretation. We have used some recent donations to obtain legal advice to see if we have the correct interpretation of the permit condition and whether we have rights to seek civil enforcement to require appropriate test drilling. We are still waiting on this legal advice.
Peter McGlone