State Government Advocacy on a Queensland Pilot to Regulate Data Centres - Location, Energy Use and Treated Wastewater Cooling - and State Funding for Council-Delivered Lifeguard Services to Reduce Coastal Drownings · 2026-09-17 Notice of Motion - Cr Lorentson - QLD Pilot to Regulate Data Centres & State Funding for Council Delivered Lifeguard Services

Page 2

COUNCILLOR COMMENT
On 9 September 2026, the LGAQ Chief Executive Officer advised that both motions were received
after the Motions Portal had closed and, assessed against the LGAQ's Motions Protocol, did not
meet the submission deadline for acceptance as urgent motions. Neither motion will therefore
proceed to debate at this year's Annual Conference and AGM. Missing the deadline is a timing and
process outcome, not a reflection on the merit of either matter — both remain genuinely urgent:
national rules for data centres are expected to be legislated by early 2027, closing Queensland's
window to influence water sourcing requirements, and Queensland's coastal drowning toll is at a ten-
year high, with coastal councils currently locking in this season's patrol coverage. The LGAQ has
offered to refer the data centres matter to its Policy Executive following the Conference, and Council
intends to pursue both issues directly with the State Government in the meantime. The full text of
both motions is retained below, and in the attachments, to support that referral and direct advocacy.


MOTION 1 – IN FULL
Title of motion: Developing a model code for data centres – a Queensland pilot
Motion: That the LGAQ calls on the State Government to develop a model code for data centres,
addressing key issues such as location, water use and energy consumption.
Large data centres require enormous volumes of water for cooling, and this demand is usually met
from drinking water supplies. As more data centres are approved across Queensland, there is a
significant opportunity to redirect some of that demand to treated wastewater instead, protecting
drinking water for a growing population while making productive use of water that is currently
discharged to the environment. However, the window to secure this outcome through national policy
is closing quickly.
On 26 August 2026, National Cabinet agreed to set mandatory national rules for data centres,
covering energy, water use and location, with legislation expected by early 2027. Once those rules
are set, Queensland will have far less say in how they work, including whether they push data centres
toward wastewater rather than drinking water.
This is not a theoretical concern. A $31.9 billion data centre, expected to be Australia's largest, is
currently being assessed near Dalby, and its water plan, including whether it will draw on drinking
water or recycled wastewater, has not yet been finalised. The outcome of that assessment is likely
to set a precedent for future projects across the state.
LGAQ has previously passed general motions on wastewater reuse, in 2022 and 2024, both
submitted by me and endorsed by full Council, but neither addressed this issue with such specificity.
This motion asks the State to develop a dedicated model code, in partnership with councils,
addressing the location, cooling methods and energy use of data centres, so that the protection of
drinking water supplies becomes a standard consideration in project assessment rather than an
afterthought.
Noosa currently discharges 8–12 megalitres of treated wastewater into the ocean via Burgess Creek
every day. Unitywater's Wamuran scheme demonstrates that this water can be productively reused:
it irrigates local farms and reduces pollution in the Caboolture River. Burgess Creek presents a
similar opportunity to convert a waste product into a resource, while easing pressure on drinking
water supplies.
Accordingly, this motion also asks Council to investigate working with Unitywater, through the
Burgess Creek Integrated Catchment Management Plan already underway, to explore whether a
pilot project, potentially involving Sunshine Coast Council and Seqwater, could help shape the
national rules before they are finalised.

Page 3

MOTION 2 – IN FULL
Title of motion: Direct State Funding for Local Government-Delivered Lifeguard Services to
Address Rising Coastal Drowning Deaths
Motion: That the LGAQ calls on the Queensland Government to establish dedicated, ongoing
funding for local governments that directly fund and deliver professional lifeguard services on public
beaches, in recognition that local governments currently meet the substantial majority of the year-
round cost of beach lifeguard patrols beyond the state-supported volunteer surf lifesaving season;
and that this funding be reviewed regularly against rising visitor numbers, coastal population growth
and the state's rising drowning toll, so that public safety on Queensland's beaches does not depend
solely on the capacity of individual councils and their ratepayers to pay.
This motion is urgent because the consequences of inaction are measured in lives, not policy delay.
On 7 August 2026, a 74-year-old man drowned at Bokarina Beach on a weekday morning, outside
patrol hours. Every coastal council is currently finalising this season's patrol coverage, which means
decisions taken in the coming weeks will directly determine how many hours of the day Queensland's
beaches are protected.
Beach safety is not a discretionary amenity. Queensland's coastline is one of the state's most heavily
used public assets, and patrolled hours are the single most effective control against drowning. Yet
the statistics show that control is under strain: Queensland recorded 90 drowning deaths last
financial year, a 36% increase on the ten-year average, and almost all coastal deaths occurred
outside patrolled times and flags. As patrol hours are stretched thinner against rising visitor numbers,
that gap in coverage will only widen.
As land managers and trustees of public beach reserves, councils carry the practical and, in many
respects, the moral responsibility for public safety on our beaches. That responsibility is not matched
by commensurate funding. The State currently funds only the volunteer surf lifesaving season, which
operates on weekends and public holidays. The far greater cost, professional lifeguards patrolling
daily and often year-round, falls almost entirely to local government. Sunshine Coast Council alone
spends $7 million a year on lifeguards, more than half of what the State provides to Surf Life Saving
Queensland to support the entire state's volunteer movement. Noosa spends $1.69 million a year
across four beaches, for the September to May season alone.
This funding must stretch further each year. Visitor numbers continue to rise, and with them the risk
of drowning, yet Noosa's comparatively small ratepayer base limits how far Council can responsibly
extend this expenditure, regardless of how much the underlying risk grows. Councils should not be
forced to choose between patrol hours and other essential services simply because of the size of
their rate base.
This motion asks the Queensland Government to establish dedicated, ongoing funding for council-
delivered lifeguard services, so that the adequacy of patrol coverage is determined by public safety
need rather than by the funding capacity of individual councils, and reviewed regularly against rising
visitor numbers, population growth and drowning figures.
Missing the LGAQ submission deadline does not lessen the urgency of either matter. Council intends
to pursue both through the LGAQ Policy Executive referral and direct advocacy with the State
Government.

Page 4

To all Councillors and Directors
I hereby notify that Cr Amelia Lorentson intends to move the motion as shown above at the Ordinary
Meeting dated 17 September 2026.



                                                  09/09/2026

 Chief Executive Officer                           Date

Page 5

ATTACHMENT A — 2026 LGAQ Annual Conference — Motions template
(Missed the 2026 submission deadline — urgent regardless — retained
for Policy Executive referral)
Who is the key contact                 for   this   motion?      [email protected];
[email protected]
Submitting council: Noosa Shire Council
Supporting organisation: (blank)
Council resolution #: (blank)
Date of council resolution: (blank)
State-wide relevance?: Yes
Title of motion: Developing a model code for data centres – a Queensland pilot


Motion: That the LGAQ calls on the State Government to develop a model code for data centres,
addressing key issues such as location, water use and energy consumption.


Desired outcome sought (200 word limit):
That a model code be developed in consultation with Queensland councils to comprehensively
regulate data centres, as a pilot. The model code should include assessment benchmarks relating
to the location of data centres (to ensure appropriate co-location with other land uses), cooling (to
mitigate impacts on town water supplies and support wastewater re-use) and energy sourcing and
consumption. The model code should operate as a pilot for other water-intensive uses, helping guide
local government planning and assessment, informing potential future state-based regulation, and
aligning with the mandatory national data centre standards being developed by National Cabinet.


Background (350 word limit):
Every day, Queensland councils and water utilities treat millions of litres of wastewater to a high
standard. Much of this water is still discharged into rivers, estuaries and coastal waterways, including
ephemeral coastal creeks. These continuous flows can alter natural hydrology, affect wallum
wetlands and contribute to sand loss from beach systems that help buffer communities from ocean
inundation. Discharge near popular beaches may also present unquantified health risks. Data
centres provide an opportunity to redirect treated wastewater to productive use while reducing
pressure on town water supplies. A model code could ensure data centres contribute positively to
Queensland’s economy and environment by setting clear expectations for water use, siting and
energy demand, while remaining adaptable to individual councils’ needs and aspirations. It could
also guide the appropriate location of data centres, avoiding land use conflicts, considering amenity
impacts such as noise and heat, and potential hazards associated with fuel storage. In addition to
cooling-related water considerations, the model code should also address the significant energy
needs of data centres to ensure their demand does not adversely affect Queensland’s energy grid
or surrounding communities.


Case study/Example (350 word limit):
Noosa Shire currently discharges treated wastewater to the ocean via Burgess Creek, with historical
flows of about 8–12 megalitres per day, or more than 3,000 megalitres a year. This highlights both
the volume of wastewater still being disposed of rather than reused across many Queensland council
areas, and the opportunity to redirect it where suitable end uses and co-located infrastructure can
be identified. The urgency of this issue is already evident. The Western Downs Digital Park, a

Page 6

proposed $31.9 billion hyperscale data centre near Dalby and expected to be Australia’s largest, is
currently under assessment, with its water sourcing strategy, including the potential use of recycled
wastewater, still being finalised. A Burgess Creek pilot could provide practical evidence to help guide
decisions on projects of this kind. Unitywater’s Wamuran Irrigation Scheme shows how wastewater
reuse can work in practice. The $120 million project diverts treated water from the Caboolture South
Sewage Treatment Plant through a pipeline network to farms growing strawberries, raspberries,
pineapples, turf and avocados. It supplies about 2.6 gigalitres of Class A recycled water each year,
providing growers with a reliable, climate-independent water source while supporting local jobs and
investment. It also keeps significant nutrient loads out of the Caboolture River, delivering clear
environmental benefits, as well as economic. The scheme’s success reflects the key principles
underpinning this motion. Unitywater identified a genuine end use and worked with farmers from the
outset, rather than building infrastructure speculatively. It shows that reuse schemes can be
delivered at meaningful scale where demand, end use, environmental benefit and a workable
delivery model align. Together, these examples show the opportunity for councils across
Queensland: significant volumes of treated wastewater are still being disposed of, while proven
reuse models can turn that resource into a regional asset where there is demonstrated demand, a
suitable end use, a sound business case and a net environmental benefit.

Page 7

ATTACHMENT B — 2026 LGAQ Annual Conference — Motions template
(Missed the 2026 submission deadline — urgent regardless — retained
for direct state advocacy)
Who is the key contact                for    this   motion?     [email protected];
[email protected]
Submitting council: Noosa Shire Council
Supporting organisation: (blank)
Council resolution #: NA
Date of council resolution: 16/07/2026
State-wide relevance?: Yes
Title of motion: Direct State Funding for Local Government-Delivered Lifeguard Services to
Address Rising Coastal Drowning Deaths


Motion: That the LGAQ calls on the Queensland Government to establish dedicated, ongoing
funding for local governments that directly fund and deliver professional lifeguard services on public
beaches, in recognition that local governments currently meet the substantial majority of the year-
round cost of beach lifeguard patrols beyond the state-supported volunteer surf lifesaving season;
and that this funding be reviewed regularly against rising visitor numbers, coastal population growth
and the state's rising drowning toll, so that public safety on Queensland's beaches does not depend
solely on the capacity of individual councils and their ratepayers to pay.


Desired outcome sought (200 word limit):
Queensland’s beaches are a state and national tourism asset, drawing millions of visitors who are
not local ratepayers. Public safety on those beaches is delivered through two distinct funding
streams: a state-supported volunteer surf lifesaving season, run by Surf Life Saving Queensland on
weekends and public holidays from September to May, and professional, council-funded lifeguard
services that in many locations operate daily, year-round. Local governments overwhelmingly carry
the cost of the second stream. This motion seeks a dedicated, ongoing Queensland Government
funding contribution to local governments for professional lifeguard services, reviewed regularly
against visitor growth, coastal population growth and Queensland’s rising drowning statistics, so that
the cost of protecting a state asset used overwhelmingly by visitors does not fall solely on individual
coastal councils and their ratepayers. It also seeks a public commitment to review the adequacy of
current patrol hours and coverage in light of recent drowning data, given that Queensland’s coastal
drowning toll has risen sharply and almost all recent coastal deaths occurred outside patrolled times.


Background (350 word limit):
This is submitted as an urgent late motion because the risk to public safety is immediate and ongoing,
not a matter that can wait until the next Policy Executive meeting. On 7 August 2026, a 74-year-old
man died after being pulled from the water at Bokarina Beach on the Sunshine Coast, on a weekday
morning outside the beach’s seasonal patrol times. Every coastal council enters its 2026–27 patrol
season this month, meaning decisions about patrol coverage for this season are being locked in right
now. The statistics support the urgency. Royal Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving Australia’s
2025 National Drowning Report recorded 90 drowning deaths in Queensland in FY2024–25, a 36%
increase on the state’s ten-year average. Queensland recorded the second-highest coastal drowning
toll in the country — 31 deaths, up 35% on the previous year — and Surf Life Saving Australia has
confirmed that almost every one of those coastal deaths occurred outside patrolled times and flags.
Queensland beach safety is delivered through two separate funding streams. The State

Page 8

Government, through Surf Life Saving Queensland, funds a volunteer patrol season operating on
weekends and public holidays from September to May — valuable, but only a fraction of the days
beaches are used. The far larger cost, professional lifeguards patrolling daily and often year-round,
is carried almost entirely by local governments. Sunshine Coast Council alone spends around $7
million a year on 124 lifeguards across 21 locations — more than half the $11.3 million a year the
State provides Surf Life Saving Queensland to cover the entire state’s volunteer movement. Local
governments carry this cost while assuming the risk, for a public safety service used overwhelmingly
by visitors and tourists rather than local ratepayers. Beaches are a state economic and tourism asset;
the cost of keeping people safe on them should not fall solely on councils that happen to have
coastline. As councils across Queensland finalise tightening budgets, some are being forced to
weigh lifeguard coverage against other essential services — a choice that should not need to be
made when lives are at stake.


Case study/Example (350 word limit):
On the morning of Friday 7 August 2026, emergency services were called to Bokarina Beach on the
Sunshine Coast after a 74-year-old man was found unresponsive in the water; despite first aid at the
scene, he could not be revived. Bokarina Beach is seasonally patrolled on weekends and school
holidays from September to May, so a weekday in early August fell well outside patrol times — a
stark illustration of the coverage gaps that open up once patrols step back to a seasonal or weekend-
only footing. Sunshine Coast Council’s own budget shows the scale of what local government is
already carrying. In 2026–27, Council is spending approximately $7 million a year on professional
lifeguard services, employing 124 lifeguards across 21 patrolled locations — more than half the
$11.3 million a year the State provides Surf Life Saving Queensland to support the volunteer
movement across the entire state’s 58 clubs, funding that is welcome but structured around weekend
and public holiday patrols rather than daily, professional coverage. Noosa Shire carries the same
structural cost, sharpened by its tourism profile. Council pays around $1.69 million a year for
lifeguard services across six beaches — Noosa Main, Noosa West, Peregian, Peregian North,
Sunshine and Sunrise — for the September to May season alone. Noosa’s lifeguards recently carried
out 260 rescues, more than 59,000 preventative actions and 6,700 first aid treatments while
attending to over 3.6 million beachgoers, most of them visitors, with numbers peaking sharply over
summer and school holidays. The real budget pressure comes less from year-round patrols than
from having to substantially 'man up' beach patrols during these peak tourism periods, when visitor
volumes and drowning risk are both at their highest. This pattern repeats across Queensland, from
the Gold Coast to Cairns: coastal councils carry year-round lifeguard costs protecting residents and
visitors, while the State’s contribution stays structured around the volunteer season. As drowning
tolls rise and budgets tighten, this imbalance is becoming harder to sustain — and, as Bokarina
shows, gaps in coverage can be fatal.