Eastwell v The Commissioner of Water Resources [1991] QLC 37

LAND COURT BRISBANE 20th November, 1991 Re: Appeal under Water Resources Act - A91-73. Paul Thomas Eastwell v. The Commissioner of Water Resources D E C I S I O N (Hearing at Warwick) The applicant/appellant is the owner of Lot 1751, parish South Toolburra, containing an area of 32.4 hectares. He has owned the lot for about six months. Ownership, however, has been in the family since 1896. When the lot was handed over to the appellant he applied for a licence to sink a sub-artesian bore of a depth estimated at 15 metres for the purpose of irrigating 6 hectares of lucerne and pastures. The bore was proposed to be sunk in the alluvium bordering Greymare Creek which bisects the property. The application was refused on grounds that the granting thereof would have an adverse effect on existing licensees. Mr Eastwell has appealed the decision saying in the Notice of Appeal that the Rosenthal Shire in testing the area for gravel, located water-bearing gravel at 15 feet and that a spring downstream has never been known to go dry. The appellant was represented in the hearing by his grandfather, Mr R.H. Eastwell. He related the history of the use of the block for grazing purposes, previously dairy stock, and lately for fat lamb raising on dry land pastures. At one time, 1964/74, the owner held a licence for a small pump for irrigation and stockwater use from Greymare Creek. This licence was cancelled for non-use. Recently a licence was issued to pump from Greymare Creek conditional on flows. Mr Eastwell said that this licence was satisfactory subject to the qualification that it was dependent on flows which occurred in average seasons only a couple of times a year and lasting for a few days only. In his opinion the highest and best use of the lot is for fat lamb raising and providing that irrigation water could be obtained, lucerne could [1991] QLC 37 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 be grown on a commercial basis in the summer months. Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr R.G. Carruthers, Assistant Senior Adviser (Hydrology) in the Warwick Office of the Water Resources Commission. Briefly stated, his evidence is that in this locality the alluvium of Greymare Creek is separate and distinct from the alluvium downstream of Springs Crossing (just downstream of the subject property) in that at Springs Crossing the granite base of the alluvium rises to the surface leaving an underground pool coming from that point and extending upstream to about midway between two properties - one owned by M.D. Leonard and the other by J.D. Leonard, both of whom objected to the granting of this licence. These owners and others on this aquifer graze cattle. The source of water supply for their stock, estimated at 550 by Mr Carruthers, is from the underground storage by wells or bores. Mr Carruthers does not disagree with the existence of the underground storage. It is the capacity of the storage which is the critical question. On information he had gathered from the location and depths of wells and bores in the area he estimated that the storage had a surface area of about 35 hectares with an average thickness of about 4 metres. By allowing 10% as the amount of water which will drain from the aquifer he obtained a capacity in the storage of 14 megalitres. He said that the storage is likely to fill once only in drier years and "perhaps twice" in average to wet years. He said that water in the base of the aquifer is difficult to assess and that generally the bottom 20% is unusable which would leave 11 megalitres per year of water available for use in drier years. Stock which are watered from wells and bores in the alluvium would require 9 megalitres per annum "which is almost the entire volume of water expected to be available in the alluvial basin in drier years". He concluded that should the licence be granted it is highly probable that in drier years both the applicant and the existing licensees would have insufficient water to satisfy their requirements. He went on to say that currently there are two licences within the alluvium which are immediately downstream of the applicant's property and that one is for an existing bore which is unused and the other is for a proposed bore. He said that test holes recently drilled under the authority of these licences have indicated an insufficient rate of supply for irrigation purposes and that these -- 2 of 3 -- 3 licensees will be requested to show cause why the licences should not be cancelled "under non-beneficial use provisions". In considering whether the licence may be issued it is necessary to consider the effect the granting of the application may have on the requirements of existing licensees and the requirements of neighbouring landowners. These owners who rely on underground water for stock require about 9 megalitres of water per year from a storage estimated to hold about 11 megalitres. Obviously if a licence is granted, allowing for the taking of about 6 megalitres of water per annum the capacity of the storage to water stock in dry years will be affected. The most up-to-date information available to the respondent has led him to believe that the storage is not of sufficient capacity to sustain irrigation in any worthwhile form. In the circumstances I find that it would be unwise to endanger the capacity of the storage by allowing this application. I must therefore dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Commissioner is confirmed. Member of the Land Court -- 3 of 3 --