Councillors have been accused of "derailing" a discussion on water infrastructure during a meeting of Griffith City Council, as a motion to call for more water infrastructure gave way to a debate on water trading options.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Councillor Dino Zappacosta put forward a notice of motion during Tuesday's meeting asking council to endorse a notice of motion for submission in the business paper of the National General Assembly of Local Government, which is due to be held in Canberra between June 14 and June 17.
The motion calls for the federal government to give consideration to the establishment of a permanent fund directed at either the maintenance of the security of the irrigation sector in times of drought or the investment into maintaining and improving the infrastructure supporting industries and populations which rely on the Murray Darling Basin.
Cr Zappacosta's motion also called for the undertaking of a comprehensive evaluation of future infrastructure investment requirements which secure both the environmental and productive requirements of the basin for "decades to come" and the establishment and maintenance of a sovereign wealth fund to address those matters.
Cr Zappacosta said the motion was a "good opportunity to reignite the debate regarding dam building" and focus on water security.
"If we don't have water security we are not going to have much food growing in this country and the way we are going with the drought and lack of water ... we're in a dire strait at the moment," Cr Zappacosta said.
"The feeling at the moment is right to start building further structures to contain our water."
However, Councillor Brian Simpson said he was concerned with the contents of the Riverina and Murray Joint Organisation (RAMJO) submissions to the ACCC which Cr Zappacosta had used to develop his notice of motion - in particular the submissions on water trading.
"I stand here currently with a bit of concern regarding the supplementary information Cr Zappacosta has provided," Cr Simpson said.
"As an example of restrictions they [RAMJO] would like to see in the water market, that water should only be able to be sold to and purchased by primary producers ... I have grave concerns about that for many residents in this region that buy water for their properties, for their amenity, they are not primary producers and I fear that Griffith - as a member of RAMJO - we need to make sure we are representing our constituents."
READ MORE
Cr Simpson said as the region relies on annual irrigated cropping, his concern was RAMJO had not "proof-tested" the recommendations with any irrigator groups.
Councillor Mike Neville said the issue RAMJO was trying to address with the recommendations was more to do with functionality and trading operations.
"I think from my understanding and certainly from the Murray point of view ... the issue for them is more about the actual water trading operations and functionality," Cr Neville said.
"At the end of the day the irrigator groups and others ... this is where the intention is going."
However, Cr Zappacosta said the discussion as to his motion was "derailed" by the comments from Cr Simpson and Cr Neville, as his proposed motion had nothing to do with water trading and the only section of the RAMJO document submitted to council was the section on infrastructure investment.
"I should have interjected about half an hour ago," Cr Zappacosta said.
"It had nothing to do with what you talked about ... what I talked about is simply the investment of building more dams and infrastructure.
"We're not going to the national assembly to talk about water trading or anything else, that is not the issue here at the moment."
Cr Dal Broi said he would bring up the issues raised by Cr Simpson at the next meeting of RAMJO before council voted through the motion made by Cr Zappacosta.