The NT Supreme Court will scrutinize the largest-ever Northern Territory groundwater licence, as native title holders along with an environment group file claims against the NT government.
The key points
- The ALEC and CLC have filed papers to judicially review the Singleton Station water license
- Both parties claim that the NT’s Water Act was not followed at the time the licence was issued
- Traditional Owners want the license to be revoked in order to “preserve their cultural habitats”
The Central Land Council and the Arid Lands Environment Centre have filed papers for a judicial reviewing of Fortune Agribusiness’s 40,000 megalitre water licence at a remote cattle ranch, 400 kilometres north from Alice Springs.
Fortune Agribusiness has the right to extract 40,000 megalitres from Singleton Station each year, a dry cattle property located near Tennant Creek.
Both the CLC and ALEC claim that the government did not follow its Water Act when it approved the license in April last year.
Les Turner, the chief executive officer of CLC said that the cattle station’sMpwerempwer Traditional Owns hoped to see the licence revoked in full or in part.
Licensees could be guilty of legal errors
ALEC general managerJadekudrenko said that she hoped that the legal action would shine light on water management in the Northern Territory.
“This is an opportunity for us to shine a spotlight on the unprecedented gifting water in a legislative framework which does not protect ecological or cultural values in Northern Territory.”
Emma Carmody, the Environmental Defenders Office’s Freshwater Program Manager (EDO), has taken on the case for the Arid Lands Environment Centre.
Dr Carmodys said that the license was the largest she has ever dealt with in her fifteen years of practice.
“The 15,000 megalitre groundwater license approved in New South Wales, which is a highly developed state with lots of irrigation, was the largest.
Three reasons to review
Dr Carmody stated her client, ALEC. She claimed that Environment Minister Eva Lawler committed a number legal errors when she approved the licence.
The EDO would argue there were three grounds to judicialreview the licence.
Dr Carmodys stated that the case would allege that Ms. Lawler failed to comply with the water allocation plan for the region when it approved the license and instead “applied anotherpolicydocument” in its place.
“The water allocation plan includes criteria which are designed to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems,” Dr Carmody said.
She said that one of these criteria was that modelled extraction did not cause the water table drop by more than fifteen metres.
Fortune Agribusiness’s model estimated that the project could lower the water table by 50 metres in parts.
Dr Carmody said that, given that the NT Water Act requires that the region’s water allocation plans be implemented, her team would argue that this decision is not legally justifiable.
A spokesperson for NT Government stated in a statement that the government was currently developing a long-term Strategic Water Plan.
“This matter is currently under legal dispute. Therefore, we are unable to comment further at this time.”
Fortune Agribusiness spokesmen said the company “appreciates that due process is necessary and will be cooperating with any requirements”.
