SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 26 JUNE 2019

11.3 Infrastructure Services ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE 11.3.2 VARIATION TO RFT 05-19 COWARAMUP HALL BUILDING SERVICES 1 11.3.5 RFT 02-17 HERBICIDE AND WEED SERVICES CONTRACT EXTENSION 17

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 26 JUNE 2019

11.3 Infrastructure Services 11.3.1 REMOVAL OF PRIVATE WATER HARVESTING

INFRASTRUCTURE – SHIRE RESERVES

Attachment 1 – Summary of Submissions Attachment 2 – Department of Water and Environmental Regulation - Advice

1

I329987 x Historical pumping from the river when they purchased the property. The water is used to reticulate gardens and a useful firefighting resource. There is no scheme water available in the area. If this right were to be removed, they would require time to make adjustment 2-3 years. Suggests figures on volumes of water pumped would be required to justify any comments that the pumping is causing harm to the river.

Crosses both Shire reserve 36747 and UCL Local law permit, section 91 and DWER licence

I329989 Peter and Jennifer Gherardi 292 Kevil Road Margaret river

X X X Property was subdivided in 1990 – when they purchased the property in 1994 they were lead to believe all water supply was via an electric pump to river – this supplies all domestic water for the house. Currently the pump is an electric submersible type. Water is pumped to a header tank at the highest point of the property to provide adequate pressure to the house and surrounds.

Infrastructure in and on River Foreshore, pipe and power, is below ground where it crosses the portion of the foreshore that is vested in the Shire (Lot 4847). It is not visible. On the portion of the foreshore referred to as Unallocated Crown Land (UCL) provided by Department of Planning Lands and Heritage, pipe and power is again below ground suffice to say there is a small metal box (< 1M2 & 1M in height) which houses a filter and electrical power box. This structure is lockable and it should be noted that it is beyond the portion of the UCL. The submersible pump is located on the river bed under water and the only evidence is a pipe coming from the tin box down the river bank to the pump. No sound is emitted whatsoever. There is virtually no obvious track to this structure as it is overgrown and is visited only 2 — 3 times a year to clean the filter.

Have been in contact with insurance company who have advised that the public liability insurance on their property could be extended to cover any unforeseen circumstance arising from minimal infrastructure. There is no data in the report to scientifically support claims that pumping form the river is impacting on river health. There has been no audit of the landholders to assess what the water is used for and what permissions area in place. Suggests we monitor the volumes of water being pumped in conjunction with the Department of Water and place water metres on all outlets and let the impact be properly monitored. Let us get some real numbers in order to find out what the impacts are of the pumping of water from the river upstream on flows.

Crosses both Shire reserve 36747 and UCL Local law permit, section 91 and DWER licence

I330004 John Bell X X x The plan has scientific references to support proposed changes but nowhere is there any data on how much water is being taken out of the Margaret River or Yalgardup Creek. There is nothing in the plan to quantify how much benefit to the river would result from these proposed restrictions. We purchased our property in July 1998 and the waterfall has not flowed in summer in that time.

This portion of Yalgardup Reserve was vested with the Shire in 1984. Local Law permit required Records show that the river did flow year round prior to 1984

2

The water we access from the creek is used to maintain gardens and a small lawn area. The majority of our lawn is not watered. The subdivision for this precinct did not include connection to scheme water. Our supply of tank water from roof runoff can get low by late summer, so the creek is a backup in case of fire. We would accept discussing means of formalising the use of water from the creek and would have no objection to moving the pump onto our property. Access would require a pipe to run underground from the soak to the pump.

Support the establishment of Wilderness zones as long as there are areas where the public can still access the river for social and recreational purposes. Formalisation of parking at the waterfall and Horseford is overdue, but needs to be in keeping with the river area. There are many recommendations we support, particularly weed control and formalising of tracks. However public access to the river is important as is the ability to see the river from tracks.

To be considered Noted Noted

I329909 X X X Support a revised approach to pump management. We believe that at a minimum all pumps operating out of the Margaret River should be placed within the boundary of the property accessing the water. The pumps should be as invisible as possible, with all pipes and lines buried. All pumps should be registered with the council. All pumps should be run exclusively on Electricity . There should be some system in place to monitor a cut off point for usage should any pools risk becoming too low and putting the local environment and ecosystems under any undue strain. There should be some consideration of the value of maintaining pumps for the use of fire fighting. It could be wise for pumps to have a meter so that some level of accountability exists in the usage cycle. As owners of a pump operating out of the river, we irrigate our orchard, and vegetable crops use the water for our outdoor hosing systems, and as a backup water supply in the case of fire, however, we would never want to continue this if it was in any way at the expense of Wooditchup Bilya. We support the establishment of the 5 wilderness zones. and are unequivocally opposed to any path/trail/biking track that would run from Town to the River Mouth. Based on the data presented in the Lower Margaret River Foreshore Action Plan it is obvious that this kind of initiative would put the Wilderness Zones, and all vulnerable sections of the river under pressure. Overall we find the Lower Margaret River Foreshore Plan to be a comprehensive and proactive plan for the protection of the river system and wilderness areas, with a thorough vision for regeneration. We hope and strongly encourage that every stage of this process is undertaken with authentic consultation with indigenous leaders and our community

Crosses both Shire Reserve and UCL Local Law permit, Section 91 and DWER licence Noted Noted

3

I329910 x X X Non-essential pipes & pumps where water is available should be removed but ones that been used for the property to function should be exempt.

noted

I329951 X x x We agree and support the proposed approach, requiring the relocation of existing pumps, electrical connections and associated above ground infrastructure from the Foreshore Reserve to private property. We would however request that the council grant adequate time to carry out these works. We will bury the existing pipework so it is not visible and in such a manor not to cause obstruction or in any way interfere with the watercourse or the Reserve. We will provide the council with as built drawings and coordinates of the buried pipe for their records The existing pump house and pipework was installed circa 1973. This was due to written advice received by the then Water Board (Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage Board 1 July 1964 - 1 July 1982) who advised that there would not be scheme water available to this property and to advise any future land owner that water was unlikely to be available in the future. This advice also stated that we were to provide for our own water via water tanks and drawing from the river. In 1973 the property boundary extended to the high-water mark of Margaret River, it was only in the circa 1980's that the foreshore reserve was created. The water that is being drawn from the river initially was for the use of the landowner under the "Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914"

If we take into consideration that the Local Govt. Property Law 2013, and in particular clause 3.13 that was not enacted until 2013 and states the following: A person shall not without a permit-

(n) erect or install any structure above or below ground, which is local government property, for the purpose of supplying any water, power, sewer, communication, television or similar service to a person.

Bearing this in mind, the existing infrastructure was installed in circa 1973, long before this law was implemented. This law does not preclude us from taking of water if the structure and equipment was installed prior as this act. The act as it stands does not state that the law is retrospective. As the owner of this property, we can advise that we have never been advised or approached by the shire of this requirement and therefore the fact that we are still taking water remains a precedent.

In regards to Riparian Land and the Local Govt. Property Law 2013, and in particular clause 3.13 we are seeking legal advice as to our position and what action needs to be taken to protect what is inherently a precedent.

The electrical installation complies with AS/NZS 3000:2018 Wiring Rules.

Fire protection for pump house has been installed via a roof mounted sprinkler system. The action plan has not identified any scientific reason that pumping has a detrimental impact on the "values" of the Foreshore Reserve. Additionally the LMRFAP does not provide any data that would support the recommendation to remove access to water rights in the lower Margaret River.

There is not a Shire Reserve fronting this property. The private land is separated only by UCL. This would require the landholder to obtain a section 91 licence under the Land Administration Act and DWER licence

4

I329952 X x x Comments as above - same submission received as the previous submission I329951 There is not a Shire Reserve fronting this property. The private land is separated only by UCL This would require the landholder to obtain a section 91 licence under the Land Administration Act and DWER licence

I329618 X X X no new licences to be issued or permission given to pump water from the Margaret River; - Those already operating under the current system have their pumping from the River severely restricted to a short period during peak winter flood, to enable the existing tank to a “once a year top up” from water which at that time would flow through to the ocean in any event.

Only a narrow portion of UCL between properties no Shire reserve. This would require the landholder to obtain a section 91 licence under the Land Administration Act and DWER licence

I329633 X X X Landholder has a current 10-year water licence period which terminates on September this year. Have consulted with a Department of Water Officer in the Busselton office and been advised that we will be offered a renewal for a further 10 year period. In practice, we pump only during the period of full flow. The electric pump is well and truly nullified by the gurgle and babble of a fast flowing river. The visual aesthetic is minimal as the pump house, twenty years on, is nearly obscure within the foliage. is absolutely integral to the agricultural and value adding commercial activities

This Licence is subject to the following terms, conditions and restrictions:

1 The licensee shall allow the stream flows to pass unimpeded during the months of December through to April, or as otherwise directed by the Department of Water.

2 During periods of inadequate supply the Department of Water may limit or reduce the amount of water that may be pumped.

3 lf in the opinion of the Department of Water the draw from the stream is having undesirable environmental impacts the Department may reduce the amount that may be drawn.

4 The licensee shall not interfere with the bed of the watercourse on any location, except as approved by the Department of Water

5 The taking of water pursuant to this licence shall not exceed 45000 kilolitres per

annum without prior approval.

Landholder has the appropriate water licence in place. A Local law permit is required.

I329209. x X X Support pump removal where it is genuinely impacting on the river. We currently only pump from the river in Winter into storage tanks. There accommodation business would fail if not able to access this water.

Shire reserve – local law permit required

I329056 X x x Long history of pumping from the River since 1945. Rely on the water to irrigate gardens and for backup firefighting purposes and object to the loss of this right.

Crosses Shire reserve – local law permit required

5

Agree with the need to tidy up parking facilities at the Waterfalls Object to any planting along the Yalgardup Brook that would increase fire risk

Noted Noted

I329057 X x x History of pumping from Brook, the water is used for garden areas and lawn, and part of firefighting plan. $20,000 worth of equipment/ set up costs. Found it hard to identify where the wilderness zones were proposed and what it would mean if these zones were allowed.

UCL and Shire reserve 36747in between. Local Law permit, Section 91 and DWER licence Future report and more consideration required on the Wilderness zones.

I329168 X X x Believes it would be reasonable to require (over an appropriate timeframe) that pumps that are currently located in the Foreshore Reserve should be relocated to within lot boundaries and housed in pump sheds to reduce fire risks, better manage public access, and maintain the public amenity of the foreshore . The pipe that services my property is buried and not visible and does not cause

obstruction or interference to the watercourse or the Reserve, and provides water for

"domestic and ordinary purposes," all consistent with the provisions of the Act. The electric

pump and pump house is located within the boundaries of my property, have no impact on the

foreshore reserve, and pose no fire risk.

I use river water for "domestic and ordinary purposes" only-it is used for flushing toilets,

watering the garden, veggie patch and orchards, watering my flock of chickens and pet milking

goats and horses, topping up my biological pond during summer, and maintaining a green

zone around my house, which is an integral part of my fire management plan. I do not

have a connection to Water Corp services, and while it runs past the property at the top of my

200m long steep driveway, it would be prohibitively expensive for me to connect to scheme

water,and prohibitively expensive to maintain my current landscaping, fire management

green zone areas, and domestic use with scheme water. The property's rights to water under the Act attributed a significant value to the

property at the time of my purchase. I would not have purchased the property if it did not have

access to a non-scheme source of water for the gardens and fire management, and the loss of

that right would significantly impact the safety and value of the property.

The inlet pipe that connects to my pump through the Foreshore Reserve was installed in

approximately 1989. This was therefore installed decades prior to the enactment of the Shire's

local Government Property local law (2013,) which states in clause 3.13 (1):

A person shall not without a permit- (n) erect or install any structure above or below ground, which is local government property, for the purpose of supplying any water, power, sewer, communication, television or similar service to a person .

UCL and Shire reserve 40293 Local Law permit, Section 91 and DWER licence

6

Clause 3.13 (1) does not prohibit the taking of water,supply of electricity, etc., via an already

erected or installed structure,and does not state that it applies retrospectively. We have never

received any advice or instructions from the Shire that clause 3.13 (1) extinguished our

existing rights to take water under the Act, or that we were or would be required to remove

existing infrastructure.

I328866 Kozlouskey X x X Support council’s effort to maintain the river foreshore and protect the important environmental values. Our pipe is virtually invisible and the electrical pump is well hidden within our private land. Small amount of water has been used to supply an emergency fire tank and to irrigate plants. All water is being recycled and returns to its source. None goes to the sewage. We would like to maintain an access to the water while assuring minimal - if any-impact on the environment. We support the proposition of regulation and "standardization "of the infrastructure. This include relocating all pumps to the private land, replacing petrol with electrical pumps, assessing noise, pollution and safety. In case of any evidence of significant impact on water level, water restriction during the critical periods may be necessary.

Noted 2 shire reserves between private land and River Reserve 36747 and 43268 local law permit required

I328873 R Mann

x x Historical use of water from Yalgardup reserve in form of a well located in the reserve with concrete lid. Properly wired electric’s and no pumping infrastructure within the reserve. Agrees pipes and pumps and power sources should not be located in the reserve but pumping should be allowed. Notes the river has never flowed all year has always formed pools. The Yalgardup does flow all year even just as a trickle . Our property extends down to Yalgardup Brook. We have been residents since 1984 and have always been advised not to pump from the creek. Accordingly, we have a well and pump within our boundary and no pipes into the creek. The well is cement lined and poses no risk to the public ( i.e. no possibility of falling or climbing in ). There are no exposed power cords to create a hazard. Looking at the map on the draft plan, it appears that our pump has attracted a red star which leads us to think it may be under threat of being investigated or outlawed. Can you confirm whether a water source such as ours, which is for domestic use, only is O.K. given that it is entirely within private property.

This Pump is located within the private property of lot 642 no further action required

I328902 X Historical permissions to create a well and pump from the Yalgardup foreshore reserve from the 1970s and previous acknowledgement of this right? Located on file. Most of the wells (4) on the reserve have been dug onto streams coming off landowners’ properties. Due to steepness of terrain backing onto the brook, location of wells inside our property would be impossible, the depth of the well would need to be 8-10 meters. The well on Lot 66 Devon Drive was granted shire approval in the later 1970’s since then, there has been reviews addressing concerns of the shires responsibility; 2 Safety

Shire Reserve – local law permit required

7

3 Fire 4 Public liability concerns

A set of guidelines were issued by the shire, which landowners had to adhere to. All pipes and pump are safely concealed, well locked and secured. The area around the pump well is cleared for fire prevention. Lot 66 Water usage from Well

2 Used in our fire prevention strategy plan. There are 3 high pressure outlet connections in the paddock to address any fire issues from the NE (Reserve) 3 Well water is only used for greenery to give fire protection around the

perimeter of the house (NE Direction ) 4 Quantity of water extracted each year would be less than 300,000? ltrs 5 Period of water extracted is approximately 20 weeks of the year 6 Sprinklers for lawn run to standard Water corporation sprinkler times and days

I329017 Llyod Shepardson

70 Doyle Place X x x Historical pumping from River for all domestic purposes but have since added more storage

capacity, which allows us to have adequate rain water for domestic and limited garden water; with the previous capacity available for fire-fighting and property protection uses. The latter tank capacity can, and is topped from the river supply. We keep this tank up to capacity throughout the year for fire-fighting purposes if that need arises. We believe a "green garden" is a good and healthy fire protection and preventative tool on its own. We have used this system for the past 30 year period, pumping from a river pool adjoining our property. That pool has never run dry. Note! It is unclear as to where the 5 Wilderness Zones are; If we read figure 2 correctly, some of these zones have areas of degraded and completely degraded vegetation. Given time, these areas will grow back without the restrictive nature of this plan. Objection 12:18 Reserves Discreet pumping should be allowed for residence fire-fighting Objection 12:19 Old fencing should be retained for "heritage values" and as a reminder of our previous farming & rural values on this land. Objection 12:43 Fire risk reductions to meet Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL) levels must be similar to those on adjoining lands, ie fire control must take place on public foreshore land as well as private. Objection 15:1 Adding fencing and gates is completely contrary to 12:19.

2 vested shire Reserve 36747 and 43268 – local law permit required Noted. Noted, and considered through Shire Bush Fire Risk Management Plan. Noted

8

I328656 Margaret River Regional Environment

Centre

x X X Support the recommendations of the report but would like to see a more holistic view on the protection of the environment.

Noted

I328707 Rex Dyer, Devon Drive X x x Although I support the removal of infrastructure from the Lower Margaret River Foreshore Reserve, I have to object as there is not the ability to offer conditional support. There needs to be the ability for Council to consider each situation on its individual merits to facilitate the staged removal of all infrastructure. The items to be considered should include the quantity of water drawn, the purpose of the water drawn from the system and timeframe in which this can continue to occur. Where previous conditional approvals have been granted for this activity a concession must be given as to how these situations are to be dealt with.

2 The creations of Wilderness Zones along the Margaret River have serious and long

lasting implications that will be difficult to reverse and should not be entered into

lightly

3 The report does not define what a wilderness zone along the Margaret River foreshore

means and therefore the future implications of creating the zones.

4 Although in principle I support protecting all of the foreshore areas, I am concerned

that adopting specific areas as wilderness zones could adversely impact the ability for

council to undertake future activities within the designated areas that benefit the

community 's ability to access and utilise them.

5 The shire already has the ability to manage its parks and reserves, so should exercise

those powers to ensure that these areas are protected .

While I welcome the development of an action plan and its intent, I am unable to support the

document in its current version. Even if this action plan is not endorsed Local Government

has the ability to manage its reserves including but not limited to the spraying of weeds,

erosion control and restriction of activities that can occur within the reserve and so is able

to commence positive action to improve and rehabilitate these areas.

Pump located on the yalgardup Brrook. Need a local law permit from Shire. Noted. Noted.

I328511 Mark Boyd x x X Believes pumping has had a negative impact on the river supports removal I328513 X X X 35 year history of water pumping from the river. Used for domestic and firefighting purposes.

They live in a pristine part of the river which they observe daily and believe in the time they have lived no deterioration to the river as is supported in the action plan. Would like to continue with the current pumping arrangement but are open to options to create a fair compromise.

Shire reserves 36747 and UCL separating the water. Requires Local law permit, Section 91 and DWER licence

9

I328470 Geoff Yates, Herford Place

X x x Respect authors and report but not supportive of the removal of pipes and pumps. Has evidence of historical consultation with the Shire and permissions to install well within the Shire reserve – not pumping form the creek itself. After consultation with our ward Councillor it was agreed that we could establish a well 13 metres from our boundary and into our same stream. Please note, the Yalgardup Brook is another 40 plus metres to the west. This was previously addressed by the Shire of Augusta Margret River with Shire Planner, 21st August 1987 and again by Chief Executive Officer Mr James Trail, 18th February 2004. We have copies of this paperwork available at your request. We met all five criteria even though this was for riparian water rights and ours is fed by our stream, which flows 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and we pump for less than 30 minutes a day. The Yalgardup Brook used to flow most of the year when being fed by the sewerage farm, the Shire’s dump and liquid disposal. However, climate change is real and I note that February rainfall is at an all-time record low and we used to get an average annual rainfall of over 1,000 ml yearly and now this average is significantly lower. Over the past 39 years, we have established an extensive garden and orchard with lots of hard work, love and money which is now our pride and joy. It is also a haven for a wide variety of fauna including phascogales, possums, bandicoots and rare bird species to name a few We will comply with the council’s conditions to have our pump remain. There is no public safety issues with the current setup, the only thing exposed is the pump cover and the well is covered by a reinforced trafficable lid and the lid is covered by soil. We have made every effort to keep the well on our property but it was impossible to penetrate the granite reef. We have met the criteria for our pump to remain every time the Shire has conducted an action plan for the Yalgardup Brook and we appeal to you to take this into consideration and allow us to continue to use this critical source of water for our property.

Crosses Shire Reserve 36747 Local law permit required

I328312 X x X Kevill road since 1999 – structural issues with the house and engineering advice requires the external areas of the house needed some hydration in summer to keep the clay substrate from shrinking. We strongly object to this proposal to stop pumping, as it will cause structural damage to our house. We therefore installed a solar powered pump (on our land) that draws from the river at around two hundred litres a day over summer to irrigate the areas against the footings. All Margaret River residents draw from the river and unfair to target Lower MR users when all impact We agree with the other proposals in the plan

shire reserves 36747 and UCL between river and private land. Requires a local law permit , Section 91 Licence and DWER licence. Noted

I327931 Beth and Rick Cowan 5950 Caves Road

X x x Pump from the river when in full flow and top up tanks, They do not pump in Summer as there is literally no water in the river at that time of year. Water is used for gardens (not lawn areas) and firefighting.

Shire reserve 43268 in between river reserve and private land. Local law permit required

10

I327245 Wendy Pol 153 Illawarra Ave

X X X Lived at property since 1980, used to pump from the river for all household uses but have since installed tanks and now the river water is only used for the veggie garden. It is also an important firefighting source. There has always been 4 pumps in this part of the river and a sees no changes or detrimental impact from their use.

Shire 36747 and UCL . Local law permit, Section 91 and DWER licence

I326877 X X X Have lived at Ashton St and in the 40 odd years that I have lived here I have not pumped water from the river for more than 35 years.I harvest rainwater and have scheme water for a vegetable garden

Noted.

I325921 Angela laloggia Jandakot

x x x If impacting the environment pumps should be removed Noted.

I326059 X X X We hold rights under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 to remove water from the Margaret River. When we purchased the property some 20 years ago the then owners had a pump and power point, located at the top of the bank close to the river and immediately below the property, connected to a pipe and float positioned in this deep section of the river. Our first action was to relocate the pump from the foreshore reserve back into the property, disconnect the power and remove the power point and cable. We deemed having the pump and electrical connection in the foreshore reserve a potential risk from rising waters in the event of a river flood as well as to the general public, particularly children, using the foreshore, although at that time there were relatively few doing so. Subsequently we set the pump into a pit with a pine sleeper cover to eliminate any noise and to better protect it from the weather. Noise was a minor issue in this case as it’s an electric pump, it’s now virtually inaudible. The only infrastructure left in the foreshore reserve is a buried pipe to the river, the end of which is discretely located in deep water close to the bank but out of the way of the swimming and marron catching areas. It is sufficiently unobtrusive to miss being recorded in Fig 7 on page 24 showing the various pumping infrastructure locations along this section of the river! The river is an important source of water for our property, which is fully independent of the towns water supply. The property has only had scheme water available for about four years when the first of the recent Ashton St subdivisions was constructed. Prior to that we had to be self sufficient in water. We harvest rain water from all the roofs on the property and can hold about 180,000 litres in two large concrete tanks and two smaller collector tanks. This water storage supplies all the kitchens bathrooms and laundries for the main house and the cottage. The WCs are connected to the river water system as the rain water storage could be insufficient to support the WCs as well as the rest of the facilities during a long dry summer when the tanks can run quite low. There is no point in us putting in additional tanks as the existing tanks rarely overflow so we are capturing pretty well all of the available rain water off the roofs. We would not be able to maintain the gardens, which also provide an extensive habitat for a wide variety of birds and reptiles, if we had to change from the river supply to scheme water, it would

Crosses Shire reserve and UCL Local Law permit, Section 91 and DWER licence

11

be too expensive. Besides, both sources are drawn from the Margaret River so it makes no practical difference if our water is drawn from a point a few kms downstream from the main town water supply dams! Our pumping arrangement has been working efficiently for about thirty five years. In the time that we have owned the property we have addressed the safety, noise and aesthetic issues so that today, unless someone has a serious poke around in a concerted search, no one would know a pump arrangement existed! It does not interfere with the passive recreation and enjoyment by the many locals who visit this stretch of the river. The other matters that we wish to comment on are Options a) and b) on page two of the letter.

• Option a) we addressed many years ago by relocating the infrastructure to within our property boundary, apart from the suction pipe to the river which we buried. I see no practical issue with the Shire requiring similar action be taken by all land holders who have infrastructure within the Reserve. Modern pumps can draw over a reasonable distance and then pump up to the property so very close proximity to the water source is not necessary. Fossil fuel driven pumps are also not necessary these days, there are a number of electric powered alternatives from mains to solar pumping up to header tanks during the day for gravity reticulation at night which immediately cuts out the noise pollution concerns and uses the sun to do the work!

• Option b): We are not in favour of Licencing as this has the potential to create a bureaucratic administrative cost which will be passed on to the property owners, for what benefit? There are relatively few pumping points along the river, I counted 32 pumps or pipe only locations shown on Figs, 7, 12, 17 and 22, after allowing for repeats over map boundaries. As I understand it, pumping rights under the Rights in Water Irrigation Act 1914 are limited to properties fronting a natural water course which in practical terms means that those currently in existence will be the extent of allowable pumping points along the Margaret River under the Act, so it is not going to become a growing problem. These pumping points have existed for many years without causing any issues so there is no need to bureaucratise them now. If anything a simple Register on the Shires computer system to record where they are and monitor that they are ‘cleaned up’ as detailed in Option a) above, at essentially no cost to create or maintain, should be all that is necessary, and leave it at that.

I…. Name X X X

Totals 5 23 1 17 5 4 16 8 3 Removal of pumps and pipes – 5 support, 23 object and 1 indifferent Wilderness Zones - 17 support, 5 object and 4 indifferent Endorse the Plan -16 support, 8 object and 3 indifferent

12

13

14

15

16

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 26 JUNE 2019

11.3 Infrastructure Services 11.3.5 RFT 02-19 HERBICIDE AND WEED SERVICES

CONTRACT EXTENSION

Attachment 1 – WALGA Glyphosate Info page Attachment 2 – CONFIDENTIAL Contract Review Report – RFT 02-17

Herbicide and Weed Services

Attachment 3 – CONFIDENTIAL Review of Herbicide Use and Industry Benchmarking

17

ONE70 LV1, 170 Railway Parade, West Leederville, WA 6007

PO Box 1544, West Perth, WA 6872 T: (08) 9213 2000 F: (08) 9213 2077 info@walga.asn.au

www.walga.asn.au

INFOPAGE

To: Chief Executive Officers

From: Mark Batty Executive Manager Environment and Waste

Organisation: All Councils

Date: 16 August 2018

Subject: Glyphosate

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum, non-selective, post emergent, systemic herbicide that kills or suppresses all plant types (except those genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate). Glyphosate acts by disrupting the shikimic acid pathway, which is unique to plants, to prevent biosynthesis and kill the plant. Products containing glyphosate that are registered for use in Australia are formulated as solutions, granules, aerosols and gels and are generally applied using ground or aerial equipment. Councils use glyphosate for weed management in natural areas, spot spraying in parks and gardens and weed spraying on kerbs, footpaths and medians. Concerns regarding glyphosate use were raised in 2016 following the assessment of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified glyphosate in a group of chemicals that is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and World Health Organisation held a Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues in May 2016 to re-evaluate glyphosate. The summary report of the meeting stated that:

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Several epidemiological studies on cancer outcomes following occupational exposure to glyphosate were available. The evaluation of these studies focused on the occurrence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Overall, there is some evidence of a positive association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL from the case–control studies and the overall meta-analysis. However, it is notable that the only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level.

IN BRIEF: Operational Area:

Planning and Community Development / Parks and Gardens

Key Issues: Renewed concerns have been raised about human exposure to glyphosate following the August 2018 California Superior Court decision that Roundup contributed to a pest control manager’s cancer.

The national regulator for agricultural chemicals, The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) conducted a comprehensive review of the IARC assessment report and other relevant scientific material. This review concluded that the scientific weight-of-evidence indicates that exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans.

In light of the US court’s decision, APVMA has restated that Glyphosate is registered for use in Australia and approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions.

APVMA will continue to track and consider any new scientific information associated with safety and effectiveness of glyphosate, including the information available from other regulators.

Action required: For noting

18

ONE70

LV1, 170 Railway Parade, West Leederville, WA 6007 PO Box 1544, West Perth, WA 6872

T: (08) 9213 2000 F: (08) 9213 2077 info@walga.asn.au www.walga.asn.au

Glyphosate has been extensively tested for genotoxic effects using a variety of tests in a wide range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an acute reference dose (ARfD) for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity.

Following the IARC assessment, the Australian Government regulator of agricultural and veterinary (agvet) chemical products, The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), conducted a comprehensive review of the IARC assessment report and other relevant scientific material. APVMA’s final regulatory position released in March 2017 states that the scientific weight-of-evidence indicates that:

exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans there is no scientific basis for revising the APVMA’s satisfaction that glyphosate or products

containing glyphosate: o would not be an undue hazard to the safety of people exposed to it during its handling or

people using anything containing its residues o would not be likely to have an effect that is harmful to human beings o would not be likely to have an unintended effect that is harmful to animals, plants or things or

to the environment o would be effective according to criteria determined by the APVMA by legislative instrument,

and o would not unduly prejudice trade or commerce between Australia and places outside

Australia. there are no scientific grounds for placing glyphosate and products containing glyphosate under

formal reconsideration the APVMA will continue to maintain a close focus on any new assessment reports or studies that

indicate that this position should be revised. APVMA has made the following statement on its website following the Californian Superior Court decision:

APVMA is aware of the August 2018 decision in the Californian Superior Court concerning glyphosate.

Glyphosate is registered for use in Australia and APVMA approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions. Australian law requires appropriate warnings on product labels, which include relevant poisons scheduling, first aid, and safety directions detailing personal protective equipment when handling and using products containing glyphosate. The APVMA reminds all users of the importance of following all label instructions.

As the national regulator for agricultural chemicals, we continue to track and consider any new scientific information associated with safety and effectiveness of glyphosate, including the information available from other regulators.

WALGA will provide further information to the sector if it becomes available. For further information contact Mark Batty, Executive Manager, Environment and Waste

(08) 9213 2078 or mbatty@walga.asn.au

19