Were the Plaintiffs' share components calculated in accordance with Clause 25C?
110The plaintiffs do not dispute that under the 2000 Act, Schedule 10 their licences were on 1 October 2006 converted into a single aquifer licence. And they accept that the calculation of the share component of that new WAL, should be calculated pursuant to the 2003 Plan, cl 25C(5) and that the history of extraction used in that calculation is determined by the 2003 Plan, cl 25C(6). The plaintiffs' rely upon the contents of the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A concerning the plaintiffs' licences to show what the Minister's calculation must have been: 1925 ML for the plaintiffs' WAL and 250 for the plaintiffs' SWAL.
111The plaintiffs' case - Rules 1 and 10. The plaintiffs submit that the 2003 Plan, Appendix 4, Rule 1 supports their preferred separate licence calculation approach for cl 25C. They submit that the Minister erred in treating the properties as "amalgamated" under the 2003 Plan, Appendix 4, Rule 10.
112First the plaintiffs submit: that Appendix 4, Rule 1 requires that the history of extraction for "each entitlement" is to be calculated "separately"; that the 2000 Act, Schedule 10 cl 2 defines "entitlement" to mean a single 1912 Act bore licence; so that when Rule 1 requires each "entitlement" to be determined "separately", it infers that the separate licence calculation for which the plaintiffs contend, is the appropriate calculation; and as the plaintiffs' three 1912 Act licences were separate, their HOE should therefore be calculated separately.
113Secondly, the plaintiffs say that 2003 Plan, Appendix 4, Rule 10 does not authorise the Minister's combined calculation approach. The plaintiffs' properties were never "amalgamated" within the meaning of the 2003 Plan, Appendix 4, Rule 10. Therefore it is not possible to use Rule 10 to combine all extraction under the HOE definition prior to amalgamation, as the Minister's combined calculation purports to do. They point out that the term "amalgamated" is not defined in the 2003 Plan, so the Court should apply what the plaintiffs submit is the ordinary meaning of "amalgamated", namely, "consolidating separate lots into one title". As the plaintiffs' three properties have never been consolidated into one title, Rule 10 has no application here. Moreover, the plaintiffs support this approach by submiting that departmental officers used "amalgamated" in the sense for which the plaintiffs contend in their communications with the plaintiffs as early as September 1999.
114The defendants' answers - Rules 1 and 10. The defendants' answers to the plaintiff's case about Rules 1 and 10 are persuasive. I accept their contention that, to the extent that it is legitimate to use Rule 10 to inform the process of construction, Rule 10 favours the defendants' approach to the calculation.
115But the first question is the extent to which any of these Rules in Appendix 4 may legitimately be used in aid of the construction of the 2003 Plan, or other parts of the legislative scheme. Clause 6(5) of the 2003 Plan makes clear that the rules in Appendix 4 do not form part of the 2003 Plan. But that does not mean they can simply be disregarded, especially in construing clause 25C of the 2003 Plan. The Appendix 4 Rules can inform the construction of the plan: Nature Conservation Council (NSW) Inc v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (2005) 137 LGERA 320, at 339 [48] - [50] per Spigelman CJ.
116The defendants' submission is correct: that Rule 1 has no application here; and in any event, the rule should be read subject to the application of Rule 10, which governs calculations in respect of linked 1912 Act licences. Rule 1 of Appendix 4 is designed to answer an argument that calculations for bore licence entitlements should be undertaken together, if the one owner holds all those entitlements. The effect of Rule 1 is to ensure that a person holding more than one 1912 Act licence is not by that fact automatically to be disadvantaged by having all commonly owned licence entitlements included in the one calculation. But that is not this case. Each of the three plaintiffs separately holds its own property and held, as at 1 October 2006, its own 1912 Act licence. And in Rule 1 the expression "irrespective of ownership" foreshadows the possibility, then dealt with in Rule 10, that one 1912 Act licence entitlement may be connected to multiple properties owned by different owners. Rule 1 has no application to the present case.
117But Rule 10 does apply here. The plaintiffs' three properties are relevantly "amalgamated", even though they are formally registered on separate titles, because they are operated as one commercial entity.
118The term "amalgamated" is not defined in the 2003 Plan. But the plaintiffs' construction, which limits the meaning of the expression to cases in which more than one allotment have been consolidated into a single title, is too narrow. There is no reason to assume that the drafting of the 2003 Plan had in mind the merger of titles under the Real Property Act 1900. Nothing in the 2003 Plan, other perhaps than the word "amalgamated" itself, is a basis to suggest that merger of titles is in contemplation. Indeed "amalgamated" is a quite inapt word to use to describe the joining of separate titles into one under the Real Property Act, which uses the expression "consolidation" to describe the process of such title merger: Real Property Act, ss 14A, 45D, 49, and 81J.
119The defendants' construction of the word "amalgamated" in Rule 10 authorises the Minister to conduct a combined licence calculation under clause 25C, so as to produce a result which is consistent with the plaintiffs' WAL and SWAL share components as set out in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A - a higher order legislative instrument (see below). I accept the defendants' contention that because the plaintiffs' construction of the word "amalgamated" contradicts the calculation results displayed in Schedule 4A that is another basis for rejecting the plaintiffs' construction. And the 2003 Plan is a legislative instrument to which the Court should take practical approach in construction by seeking to give effect to its overall purpose in its legislative context: Cranbrook School v Woollahra municipal Council (2006) 66 NSWLR 379 per McColl JA at 388 [36].
1201912 Act Part 5 licences with linked conditions were an established feature of the 1912 Act licensing scheme when the 2000 Act, the 2003 Plan and the 2004 Regulation were all passed and given effect. Such linked licences are expressly dealt with in Schedule 10 cl 17. Rule 10 is the only one of the 2003 Plan, Appendix 4 rules, which could describe the necessary calculation in respect of linked licences. And some kind of rule was necessary in order to select among the many possible calculation choices for linked licences. In my view Rule 10 does give guidance to the present computation and it does so by selecting the defendants' combined licence calculation approach.
121And Rule 10 is not unfair. The plaintiffs had the effective benefit of a single bore licence across all three of the properties with a combined extraction limit of 4,899 ML. This gave the plaintiffs a better result than they would have obtained had they combined their three licences into a single licence. I accept the evidence of Mr Lawson, the defendants' witness, that under the departmental policy existing in 1999 - 2001 the formula for entitlement to 1912 Act, Part 5 allocations resulted in a tapering scale of entitlement in relation to the size of the property: the larger the property area the smaller the per-hectare entitlement. Having had the benefit of a single aggregate extraction limit for all three properties since 2001, it was not inappropriate that the plaintiffs' dependence on groundwater should be assessed for the purposes of conversion under the 2000 Act on the basis of a single history of extraction for three properties.
122Finally, the defendants' two answers to the plaintiffs' contentions based on departmental practice is persuasive. The parties' choice of words in their correspondence about whether or not the plaintiffs' titles were regarded as "amalgamated" does not control the proper interpretation of the 2000 Act, the 2003 Plan, or the 2004 Regulation. This correspondence between the parties is not a legitimate aid to construction and the Court cannot take it into account.
123Moreover, the correspondence does not all favour the plaintiffs. Some correspondence of departmental officers certainly suggests that the department is using the term "amalgamated" in the sense of the combining of land titles. But yet other correspondence suggests that the department intended to use the term to refer to properties held in separate titles, which were nevertheless treated as one, or "amalgamated", by reason of linked conditions specifying the maximum volume of water, which may be extracted from all the bores on the separate titles.
124Lastly, the defendants say more generally that it was appropriate that the plaintiffs' dependence on groundwater be assessed on the basis of a single history of extractions because: the plaintiffs had the benefit of a single, aggregated extraction limit for all three properties since 2001, and for all practical purposes the plaintiffs were in the same position as if they have obtained a single bore licence for all three Properties.
125Correctness of the cl 25C calculation - plaintiffs' case & defendants' reply. The plaintiffs' arguments as to the error in the Minister's clause 25C calculation are matched below with the defendants' answers to those arguments.
126First, the plaintiffs' contentions as to the alleged error in the clause 25C calculation start with the form of the plaintiffs' 1912 Act, Part 5 licences issued on 19 April 2001. The plaintiffs submit that, in their licences, their 1912 Act "entitlement" to which the 2003 Plan, cl 25C(6) refers, are the three separate entitlements of their original licences (1615ML for the Hutchins licence, 1900ML for the Danwillach licence and 1384ML for the Delta licence) and not the combined figure of 4899ML introduced into each licence in the 2001 linking condition. This, they say, follows from the language of the licences themselves. The 2001 linking condition in each licence provides that the "volume of groundwater extracted from the works authorised by this licence and by Licence Nos [the two other plaintiffs' licences] shall not exceed 4,899 megalitres". This language, the plaintiffs submit, suggests that a separate amount is still authorised under each licence. And this conclusion is supported, they further submit: (1) by the figure of 4,899ML included in the 2001 condition being not a new figure but just the sum of the several entitlements under the individual 1912 Act, Part 5 licences; and (2) by the fact that each of the plaintiffs' 1912 Act, Part 5 licences also included a condition, (set out earlier in these reasons) tying the allocation of water under that licence to the total area of land referred to on the face of the licence (the corresponding property); and (3) by the fact that the total area for each licence had not changed after the 2001 linking condition was introduced - the areas of the other two linked properties had not been added on the face of any of three licences.
127And before proceeding to the detail of clause 25C, the plaintiffs submit that the Court should bear in mind the policy purpose of this clause, as was explained by Spigelman CJ in Tubbo Pty limited v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWCA 356 (Tubbo). His Honour there described the mathematical formula in clause 25C as providing "a basis for computation of the share component of the aquifer access licences into which the entitlements under the Water Act 1912 were converted by the 2003 Plan....A share component entitles a licence holder to draw on a specified or computed amount of water": Tubbo at [13]. And his Honour further said that this formula provides protection to licence holders: Tubbo at [16].
128The defendants' answer to this is persuasive: Spigelmen CJ's identified comments in Tubbo only appear to be introductory and do not appear to be intended to address the relationship between the 2003 Plan and the 2004 Regulation.
129The plaintiffs submit that properly considered the clause 25C(5) formula - as given further legislative explanation in clause 25(6), (7) and (8) - must be dealing with the determination of the history of extraction for individual 1912 Act licence holders. The plaintiffs point out that clause 25C(6) refers to "the Water Act 1912 entitlement" (emphasis added) in the singular; and the meaning of "entitlement" in the 2000 Act, Schedule 10 cl 2 includes a licence under the 1912 Act, Part 5. This the plaintiffs submit indicates that the formula is designed to operate with respect to such a single "entitlement", not the multiple entitlements of linked 1912 Act, Part 5 licences. The plaintiffs draw further support for this argument from the terms of the formula as explained in clause 25C(6) which requires "average extraction" over a period "not exceeding" the Water Act 1912 entitlement in 2001/2002". This the plaintiffs submit "could only be determined separately for each bore licence held by the Hutchins companies", partly because clause 25C (8) sets a different "activation date" for each such 1912 Act, Part 5 bore licence.
130But the defendants' answer to this is simple and persuasive, and I accept it. The text of clause 25C(6) to (8), using the singular form of the word "entitlement", does not mandate the plaintiffs' approach (the separate licence calculation) in performing the calculation according to the formula. Clause 25C(5), the operative clause of the formula, refers to "entitlements" in the plural, which is consistent with a calculation over several entitlements. And clause 25C(6), upon which the plaintiffs rely, is expressed to apply "for the purposes of sub-cl (5)".
131And more generally the plaintiffs submit that applying the 2003 Plan, clause 25C(5) formula to the sum of extractions from all the plaintiffs' licences, instead of to each licence separately, is contrary to the objectives of that formula. They point out that the formula includes a component of "zero or low extraction years prior to activation" [emphasis added]. And they say that in circumstances where the plaintiffs' licences were activated at a different time that formula was intended to apply, and could only properly apply, separately to each of the licences. They add that otherwise the plaintiffs do not get the benefit of the "zero or low extraction years prior to activation" of each of the properties.
132But the plaintiffs' submission here really begs the question by assuming in their own favour that they are entitled to the benefit of a separate licence calculation. Even on the defendants' preferred approach to the formula, the combined licence calculation, some "zero or low extraction years prior to activation" may be excluded. All the defendants' construction means is that the plaintiffs' will exclude fewer "zero or low extraction years prior to activation" than the plaintiffs want to have excluded. That is hardly contrary to the objectives of the clause 25C formula.
Are the plaintiffs' share components as specified in the 2004 Regulation?
133As a preliminary to the discussion of the 2004 Regulation, it is useful to see where it fits into the legislative scheme of the 2000 Act, Schedule 10. The parties' submissions took quite different approaches to the construction of the 2000 Act, Schedule 10: the plaintiffs emphasised the operation of cl 3; the defendants emphasised the operation of cl 17.
134The defendants' analysis commences with the 2000 Act, Schedule 10, cl 17. They submit that because of the linking conditions imposed in 2001, the plaintiffs' 1912 Act licences are a "group of licences under Part 5 of the 1912 Act that, "immediately before the appointed day, were linked by a condition specifying a maximum quantity of water that may be taken under all of the licences" and thereby attract the operation of Schedule 10, cl 17(1).
135In my view that submission is correct. The linking condition in the plaintiffs' "group of licences" clearly answers the description in cl 17(1) of "specifying the maximum quantity of water that may be taken under all of the licences", here 4899ML.
136The defendants further submit that on 1 October 2006 the effect of Schedule 10, cl 17(2)(a) was that group of licences is "taken to have been replaced" by a "single aquifer access licence held by all the persons or bodies who held the licences for the quantity of water specified by the linking condition".
137It is clear in my view that cl 17(2) is the provision which replaces such linked licences and merges them into a single WAL. Clause 3(1) does not speak to the specific replacement of linked Part 5 licences in the names of different licence holders under the 1912 Act. Only clause 17 does that. And when it does so, it gives the single WAL the specific quantity of water that is already specified in the linking condition. Here that is, 4,899ML.
138But Schedule 10, cl 3 still has some work to do with respect to the multiple 1912 Act, Part 5 bore licences to which cl 17 applies. Clause 3 operates "subject to this schedule" and clause 17 specifically provides how linked multiple bore licences, "are taken to have been replaced", and sets the resultant quantity of water specified in the replacing licence.
139But Schedule 10, clause 3(1)(a)(ii) deals with an additional circumstance which applies with the 2003 Plan and the 2004 Regulation for the Lower Murrumbidgee Groundwater Sources, namely that "relevant management plan, and regulations made for the purpose of this paragraph, indicate that a different quantity of water, calculated in accordance with a specified methodology, may be taken...". That is the case here: the 2003 Plan and the 2004 Regulation both co-ordinately, under cl 3(1)(a)(ii) "indicate a different quantity of water...may be taken". The plaintiffs' submissions tended to emphasize the operation of the 2003 Plan, clause 25C. But the 2004 Regulation operates in a co-ordinate way under clause 3(1)(a)(ii). With these observations I now turn to the defendants' alternative argument based on the 2004 Regulation.
140The defendants' submission is that even if the methodology in the plan were not applied according to its terms, the plaintiffs' share components are as specified in the 2004 Regulation.
141The defendants submit that under the provisions of the 2004 Regulation, r 29B and Schedule 4A, each group of linked 1912 Act licences listed in Column 1 of Schedule 4A "is taken to have been replaced" by "an aquifer access licence with a share component of the volume specified in Column 2" of Schedule 4A: 2004 Regulation, r 29B(2)(a) and (b). And in the relevant case of the Lower Murrumbidgee the volumes specified in Columns 2 of Schedule 4A are declared to "have been calculated in accordance with" the methodologies in the 2003 Plan, cl 25C: the 2004 Regulation, r 29B(3)(c).
142The defendants submit that the share components for the plaintiffs' WAL and SWAL were specifically prescribed in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A table. And they say that even if the 2003 Plan, clauses 25C and 25D were to have been applied incorrectly to the plaintiffs' licences (which they say has not occurred, if their earlier argument is accepted) the figures listed in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A are decisive, because the 2004 Regulation, r 29B(2) provides that the 1912 Act licences are "taken to have been replaced" by 2000 Act licences with share components specified in 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A and, in case of SWALs, because the 2000 Act, Schedule 10, cl 8 states that supplementary water access licences "are taken to have arisen in accordance with the regulations".
143The 2000 Act, Schedule 10, cl 3(1)(a)(ii), providing as it does for the co-ordinate operation of legislative instruments such as the 2003 Plan and the 2004 Regulation, confirms that these instruments form and operate as an integrated legislative scheme coming into effect on 1 October 2006. It is permissible to have regard to one instrument in such a scheme in construing the other instruments, and the Court should prefer a construction that gives a coherent operation to all aspects of the scheme: Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (SA) v Ellis & Clark Limited (1934) 52 CLR 85 per Dixon J at 89-95; Brayson Mavis Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth)(1985) 156 CLR 651 at 652; Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 719, Kirby P at 273-4.
144The defendants submission then, which I find persuasive, is that clause 29B, and Schedule 4A of the 2004 Regulation operated as a kind of deeming provision, declaring or deeming that the methodology of the 2003 Plan produced a set of particular share component volumes as set out in the Schedule. It is difficult to understand why clause 29B and Schedule 4A have been created at all, unless the authors of the statutory scheme intended that they would be definitive of the share component volumes and that they would prevail over the methodology in the 2003 Plan, in the event of any arguable inconsistency. In substance clause 29B(3) is declaring that the methodologies have been correctly applied and the 2004 Regulation determines the plaintiffs' entitlements in the event of any inconsistency of the type that the plaintiffs allege between the methodology of the 2003 Plan, clauses 25C and 29D, and Schedule 4A of the 2004 Regulation.
145Existing authoritiy also supports this conclusion. In Green, Jagot J accepted the very same reasoning as to the operation of Schedule 4A of the 2004 Regulation. Green concerned a different aquifer, the Lower Macquarie Groundwater Source, and the alleged methodological error in Green was slightly different from that the subject of these proceedings; it centred on the words "zero and no extraction used since activation [emphasis added]" in clause 25C of the Macquarie Plan. But in Green her Honour set out the same argument that the defendants made in these proceedings on this issue and accepted it: Green at (3, 42-(7) and [44]-[50]). With respect, I agree with her Honour's reasoning in Green.
146Although it is not essential to the defendants' argument in relation to the effect of the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A, the defendants also submit the Court should also accept Jagot J's conclusion that, in the event of an inconsistency, 2004 Regulation, r 29B(2) takes precedence over the formula in the 2003 Plan, cl 25C, because of the operation of the 2000 Act, Schedule 9, cl 1(4), which give precedence to transitional regulations created under the 2000 Act over the transitional provisions in the 2000 Act, Schedule 10, if "the regulations so provide". I agree with Jagot J in Green that the 2004 Regulation does "so provide": the explanatory note to the 2006 amendment to the 2004 Regulation, introducing cl 29B identifies that it is made under Schedule 9, clause 1.
147Finally, the defendants persuasively submit that even if the Court were minded to grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs, it does not have the power to do so in this proceeding. The relief the plaintiffs seek may not be granted consistently with the provisions of the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A table which lists WAL's and SWAL's current share components. If the plaintiffs are successful, any orders this Court might make correcting the volume of their WAL and SWAL share components would mean that the table in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A would have to be rewritten. But the plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of the 2004 Regulation. In my view the plaintiffs have not identified any basis on which this Court could rewrite it.
148The defendants put this argument in a slightly different way in oral submissions. Mr Hutley SC described the effect of 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A as follows:
"It [Schedule 4A] is the legislature saying, in effect, we have applied this formula and come to these conclusions. That is, we say, completely antithetical to a deeming position. It is really the legislature saying, for very sensible reasons, we give you contemporaneous evidence of what the meaning of this formula is and unless one was absolutely compelled to come to the contrary conclusion because it was absurd, for example, it is the best evidence or assistance a court could possibly have to the meaning of such a thing."
149The defendants' contention is that in Schedule 4A of the 2004 Regulation the legislature was providing a kind of "worked example" of the clause 25C methodology, is persuasive. After all, there could be many arguments apart from the one that the present plaintiffs advance, about possible permutations in the operation of clause 25C methodology. Showing the result of the calculation according to the Minister's calculator is a simple way of clarifying which of those many possible choices of methodology was used, in order to avoid all forms of future argument.
150The plaintiffs contest the conclusion that the WAL and SWAL share components were definitively prescribed in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A table. In their submissions the table is said to be a deeming provision that only creates a rebuttable presumption: Macquarie Bank Ltd v Fociri Pty Limited (1992) 27 NSWLR 203, at 207-8, per Gleeson CJ. And such a presumption may be rebutted if it does not correspond with the correct outcome of the application of the 2003 Plan, clauses 25C and 25D.
151But at least one persuasive answer to this argument is that, even if the plaintiffs are right, there is no basis to rebut the presumption, because the Schedule 4A result is consistent with at least one available application of the methodology of clause 25C. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how this deeming provision creates a rebuttable presumption, in these circumstances. If the plaintiffs are successful, all the share components for the Lower Murrumbidgee will need to be recaulcated.
152The plaintiffs also submit that the defendants' interpretation of the operation of the 2004 Regulation, r 28B(2) would defeat the purpose of the legislative conversion scheme, namely, that the share component of each individual water access licence be determined pursuant to the formulas in the 2003 Plan, clauses 25C and 25D. They submit that if the share components in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A are a result of an incorrect application of the 2003 Plan, clauses 25C and 25D formulas, that Schedule 4A should be amended to fit the scheme and allow it to operate rationally and according to the intention of the legislature, and the 2003 Plan, clauses 25C and 25D formulas should not be interpreted to fit the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A figures.
153But the answer to this argument is the same as the last: Schedule 4A is consistent with one available application of the methodology in Schedule 4A.
154The plaintiffs finally submit that Jagot J's decision in Green was incorrect and should not be followed. They submit that her Honour: (1) did not have regard to the authorities concerning statutory construction; (2) concluded that 2004 Regulation, r 29B(2) was exhaustive, notwithstanding any conflict between it and the relevant calculation formula and disregarded the more appropriate construction of the 2004 Regulation, r 29B as a rebuttable presumption; (3) erred in her analysis of the 2000 Act, Schedule 9 cl 1(4) because she did not take into account the fact that it operates only "If the regulations so provide", which, they say, 2004 Regulation, r 29B did not do; and (4) admitted that the approach she accepted as correct was cumbersome (Green at [47)]). None of these criticisms of her Honour's reasons is valid. In my view, with respect her Honour was correct in Green.
The SWAL Share Component
155The relief the plaintiffs seek relates not only to the calculation of the share component of WAL, but also of SWAL, the supplementary access licence granted to them as part of the conversion of their 1912 Act licences into 2000 Act licences. They also submit that the Minister's calculation of SWAL's share component under clause 25D is incorrect, a conclusion that the defendants also dispute.
156The 2003 Plan, clause 25D formula for calculating SWAL includes as one of its elements the outcome of the calculation of HOE in clause 25C(6). Although the experts disagree slightly on the arithmetic, both Mr Ryan, called for the plaintiffs and Mrs Doughty, called for the defendants, agreed that if the plaintiff's approach were used for calculating HOE then the Plaintiffs would be entitled to a SWAL of 473 ML (Mr Ryan) or 447 ML (Mrs Doughty). If the defendants' approach is used the result of the SWAL calculation is the same as is set out in Schedule 4A of the 2004 Regulation, 250 ML. The defendants submit that the Minster's interpretation of the 2003 Plan, cl 25C(6) formula is wrong. The defendants' arguments in relation to SWAL rely on their submissions as to the correct calculation of their history of extractions the 2003 Plan, cl 25C(6).
157The parties accept that the rationale for creating supplementary licences in the 2000 Act was to make up for some of the shortfall between the quantum of the 1912 Act licence water entitlement and the reduced share components of the new 2000 Act during the better seasons, when the Minister determines that sufficient water resources are available in the Lower Murrumbidgee region to allow extraction of water under SWALs.
158The defendants submit that the 1912 Act licences (listed in the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A table Column 1), whose water entitlements were reduced as part of their conversion into the 2000 Act aquifer WALs, were deemed replaced not only by "an aquifer access licence with a share component of the volume specified in Column 2 [of the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A]", but also by "a supplementary water access licence with a share component of the volume specified in Column 3 [of the 2004 Regulation, Schedule 4A]": the 2004 Regulation, r 29B(2)(a) and (b). For the reasons already given, in my view the SWAL share components volumes specified in the 2004 Regulation Schedule 4A table Column 3 are deemed to be, and to have been, calculated in accordance with the methodologies in the 2003 Plan, cl 25D: 2004 Regulation, r 29B(3)(c). In these circumstances, the same considerations as govern the correctness of the WAL share component will govern the validity of the SWAL share component.