Plaintiff v First Defendant

Plaintiff v First Defendant - [2010] VSC 166 - VSC 2010 case summary — Zoe

[80]

"Findlay Consulting Group have been engaged to prepare a development plan for Currie, whilst J. Reid will engage FCG when he knows all of the options for water supply to his property have been researched. Could you provide cost details and GMW views on the following.

If Currie was to require connection to the property boundary, what would his costs be for 80 hectares Viticulture

or 100 hectares Viticulture

or 200 hectares Viticulture

4ml/ha water usage

If GMW supplied Currie a tapping at Lake Road and Woorinen South Road intersection, what costs would Currie incur, for the same proposed areas listed above.

We discussed a possible further option off a spur to serve CA 18, 19 & 53E which is close to the existing pump site of Currie's. Could you again indicate the costs and G-MW views on this supply point using the same area component.

J. REID

Reid's property is located further south on CA 30 Parish of Woorinen. Reid claims he has available 400 hectares that could be developed. He is not anticipating to develop it alone, possibly involving outside investors. I have put it to him to consider 80 to 200 hectares maximum using say 4ml/ha.

Reid is serious about the development but finds the costs associated with supplying him a service to the property boundary is too high. Both Currie and Reid have discussed a joint pipeline arrangement but require further information.

What is G-MW view on this syndicate arrangement if Currie/Reid manage the pipeline from the tapping point. They both have storages that could provide the buffer needed for irrigation supply.

Do both Currie and Reid pay for the tapping and booster pumps and what additional easements are necessary for the pipeline.

Please provide the costs that Reid would incur if he and Currie were to manage the private pipeline and Reid was to develop similar areas as listed for Currie.

The area components listed are mainly to identify the costs to both parties for the Supply of Water to their properties.

Please outline the tariff structure and when these tariffs apply.

I look forward to your response."

[89]

Flow rates in excess of the nominated capacity share may be supplied however during period of peak demand supply may be limited to the agreed capacity share. Ie. if you nominate a capacity share of 12ML/d then during peak demand periods the flow will be restricted to 12 ML/day. For large holding, the provision of a large storage may allow you to optimise the nominated capacity share and minimise annual rates and charges.
The capacity share of 24ML/d is cheaper per unit than 4.8ML/d. It is apparent that under the proposed tariff structure which is based on a number of small holdings, it is more cost effective to service one larger holding than a number of small holdings. This is reflected in the capital contribution.
There is no apparent difference in cost between the two service points shown on the plan.
The capital contribution nominated in the table relates to the total capacity share nominated. For example if the developers require a total capacity share of 12ML/day than the total capital contribution will be $300,000. At this preliminary stage it can be assumed that the capital contribution can be prorated in proportion to the capacity share quoted in the table. Any significant variation will need to be modelled to confirm the capital contribution required.
Your client will need to confirm their capacity share requirements by the 18th April 2000 and be in a position to enter into a formal agreement with the Authority prior to the 12th of May 2000. This agreement will require your client to request that their holdings be included into the Woorinen irrigation Area.
The capital contribution will need to be lodged with the Authority on request. It is expected that 50 percent will need to be lodged on entering into the agreement and the remainder when the service point is provided.
As part of the project G-MW will install a suitably sized direct connection to supply water to Currie & Reid properties. G-MW has no objection to the developers entering into a syndicate or Body Corporate agreement, provided that there is delegated representative who deals with G-MW exclusively.

[293]

"96. New water, sewerage and waterway management systems

(1) If a council proposes, or two or more councils jointly propose, to have water supply, sewerage or waterway management works constructed for the whole or any part of its or their municipal district or districts, the council or councils may submit the proposal to the Minister.

(2) If an Authority (other than a council) proposes -

(a) to set up a new water, sewerage or waterway management district; or

(b) to extend its existing water, sewerage, waterway management or irrigation district -

the Authority may, subject to sub-sections (3) and (4), submit the proposal to the Minister.

(3) An Authority must not submit a proposal for a new or extended water, sewerage or waterway management district if the area to be covered is within the area of interest of another Authority.

(4) An Authority must not submit a proposal for -

(a) a new or extended sewerage district unless the area to be covered is within the Authority's water district; and

(b) a new or extended waterway management district unless the area to be covered is within the catchment for the Authority's water district -

unless the Minister in writing exempts the Authority's proposal from the operation of this sub-section.

(5) The Minister may exempt an Authority which submits a proposal for an extended water, sewerage, waterway management or irrigation district from any provisions of sub-section (6), (7) (other than paragraph (c)(i)) or (8).

(6) A proposal must be in the form required by any guidelines issued by the Minister.

(7) The Authority or council making the proposal must -

(a) give notice of the proposal to -

(i) all councils that are affected by the proposal; and

(ii) any person which the Authority or council reasonably believes may be affected or to which it is directed by the Minister to give notice; and

(b) make the proposal available for inspection free of charge at its office during its office hours; and

(c) publish a notice of the proposal -

(i) at least once every week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating generally in the area to which the proposal relates; and

(ii) in the Government Gazette, after all other notices under this sub-section have been given or published.

(8) A notice under sub-section (7) must state that -

(a) submissions on the proposal are invited; and

(b) a submission should set out the grounds for any objection raised in it; and (c) submissions must be received by the Authority or council within 1 month after the publication of the notice in the Government Gazette.

(9) If any submissions are made within one month after publication in the Government Gazette of the notice of the proposal, the Authority must consider them and, if it decides to proceed with the proposal, it must notify the Minister of its decision and send copies of the submissions to the Minister.

(10) The Minister may refuse the proposal or approve it, with or without any changes.

(11) If the Minister approves a proposal, with or without any changes, the Minister must give effect to the approval by making an Order published in the Government Gazette which -

(a) declares a new water, sewerage or waterway management district and nominates a council or an Authority to manage and control it; or

(b) extends an existing water, sewerage, waterway management or irrigation district."

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (449 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (21)