05.03.2014 Views

Review of prices for the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation

Review of prices for the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation

Review of prices for the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

3 Specific activities included in estimating <strong>the</strong> costs to be<br />

recovered through water management charges<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

– rules and processes <strong>for</strong> controlled allocation <strong>of</strong> unassigned water to licensed<br />

users<br />

– aquifer interference rules and guidelines to in<strong>for</strong>m and manage licensed<br />

extractive industries<br />

– planning rules <strong>for</strong> surface and groundwater interception and extraction<br />

– rules <strong>for</strong> stormwater harvesting<br />

– rules <strong>for</strong> groundwater trading in embargoed water sources.<br />

ensuring that 90% <strong>of</strong> transactions <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> permanent transfer <strong>of</strong> access licences are<br />

processed within 28 days<br />

ensuring that 60% <strong>of</strong> all o<strong>the</strong>r transactions and approvals are processed within<br />

3 months<br />

ensuring that 100% <strong>of</strong> reported compliance breaches are actioned.<br />

In <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> this price review, stakeholders have expressed concerns that key<br />

outputs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2006 Determination period were not achieved. Specifically,<br />

stakeholders highlight that only a portion <strong>of</strong> water sharing plans targeted <strong>for</strong><br />

completion by 2009 have been gazetted. 44 In addition, in its response to <strong>the</strong> Draft<br />

Determination <strong>the</strong> Cooma-Monaro Shire Council expressed concerns that <strong>the</strong> Return<br />

Flow Credit Policy had not been completed. In response to <strong>the</strong> criticism <strong>of</strong> its<br />

per<strong>for</strong>mance over <strong>the</strong> 2006 Determination period, NOW has provided detailed<br />

in<strong>for</strong>mation about its deliverables since 2006. This in<strong>for</strong>mation is included as<br />

Appendix J.<br />

In relation to <strong>the</strong> delivery <strong>of</strong> water sharing plans, NOW has given <strong>the</strong> following<br />

explanation:<br />

One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> criticisms we have had in <strong>the</strong> past, in terms <strong>of</strong> completing <strong>the</strong> submission, is<br />

why <strong>the</strong> water sharing plans were not completed by 2010 as required. As we require<br />

$55 million per year <strong>for</strong> water management activities, that would have enabled 311 staff to<br />

be appointed on water management activities, and … because we have not achieved<br />

$55 million per year, because <strong>the</strong> price path to recovery and reduced revenue has been<br />

substantially smaller, we have had a commensurate staff <strong>of</strong> only 256 people, 55 short on<br />

requirement. 45<br />

We acknowledge that NOW’s actual revenue has been less than expected over <strong>the</strong><br />

2006 Determination period. However, we also note that we set <strong>prices</strong> to recover <strong>the</strong><br />

efficient level <strong>of</strong> costs likely to be incurred in delivering identified services. On <strong>the</strong><br />

assumption that <strong>the</strong> Government would fund its share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficient costs, we<br />

expected <strong>the</strong> (<strong>the</strong>n) Department <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources would undertake and deliver<br />

<strong>the</strong> identified activities and services, including <strong>the</strong> targeted water sharing plans, in<br />

accord with <strong>the</strong> efficient level <strong>of</strong> cost determined by IPART – even if this required <strong>the</strong><br />

44 For example, see submissions from Lachlan Valley <strong>Water</strong> (June 2010) and <strong>the</strong> NSW Irrigators’<br />

Council (June 2010).<br />

45 Commissioner <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> (NOW), Transcript <strong>of</strong> Wagga Wagga Public Hearing, 19 July 2010,<br />

pp 11-12.<br />

42 IPART <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>prices</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Administration</strong> <strong>Ministerial</strong> <strong>Corporation</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!