DEPUTATION Applicant: ADRIAN REED, NOOSA WATERS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Topic: nOOSA wATERS aDVISORY GROUP Speakers: ADRIAN REED

Thank you. Good morning Mayor, there you are, and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Adrian Reed. I'm the president of the Noosa Waters Residents Association. Just before I get too far into the terms of preference process. We've been going down, I just thought I'd touch on who we represent. Noosa Waters is home to more than 1,100 households. And whilst we're thought of often as a waterfront estate, over half estate, of those. Over half of those. Noosa a waterfront 550 households are not on the waterfront at all. We have 25 public parks, 17 of them on the waterway, open to everybody in the Noosa community, with playgrounds off-leash dog parks amongst the other, I guess, facilities that we provide within this area, the waterway itself covers 42 hectares and more than 11 kilometres of reventment walls. Over the past year, our association Council have been working constructively to replace a 25 year old partnership arrangement with the proper terms of reference process for the standing Noosa Waters advisory group. It sets up meetings, transparent information sharing and a commitment from Council to table its maintenance plans and financials and we support it and we're very grateful for the work that's been done behind it by councils and equally our association. I'd like to cover off quickly what our waterway actually is. It's not simply a private canal for waterfront owners, it's a reserve for local government. It's a common lake area. Council as trustee. It's a stormwater drainage system for 240, sorry, 284 hectares of catchment. Roughly 44% of that lies outside of our state. It serves it the wider community Council's responsibility for it flows from the original agreement or the original approvals from 1983 and from the Land Act trustee duty confirmed by the minister to this Council, not merely from the levies that are raised from waterfront residents. Leads me to our second point, which is the financial accountability and transparency. It's the reason for the reporting provisions in the new terms of reference, and that's why they matter so much. Throughout this year, the review that we've done, we look very closely at the levies that have been and what they've been funding. We've identified a number of costs charged to residents through those levies that are in fact Council responsibilities as asset owner and trustee of the lake area. Things like salinity pumps, replacement of those pumps, pipe work, relevant examples. The original approval in 1983 itself allocated the pumping and maintenance of the water quality Council to be met by general rates and yet over the past two decades waterfront owners have effectively paid twice, full in general rates and then obviously with the levy on top of that. Exactly the kind of clarity that we're looking for and we as we look ahead we welcome a clear shared understanding. Of what the levies fund and what Council carries as a responsibility as owner and trustee and the advisory group and Council um applaud the constructive process that has been embraced under the TOR the third is water quality we're pleased to hear some of the discussion in the previous meeting but the reassurance offered in that General Committee that Council's meeting guidelines does not fully tell the story and in our view doesn't show the Councillor meeting its obligations as trustee to maintain the lake area the current or the lake area has been held to a more relaxed moderately disturbed standard well below the ecological value that the Noosa River demands that it drains into and below the high standard that the lake was originally approved and Council is obligated to maintain as trustee for this lake area on the view on a few things that are measured in the inflow test position adjacent to this to see now key meets only that relaxed bar 65% of the time and it's declining according to the 2025 NICA annual water quality monitoring report. I don't think that's something that clearly articulates that we're meeting an approach. Appropriate standard. The measure that actually tracks algae nutrients and chlorophyll is not tested at all in our canal. The original 1983 approval required a far broader monitoring program and active management of the catchment and we drifted a long way away from that. The catchment also has changed enormously since those approvals with far greater stormwater volume, pollutant loads than the original design ever assumed. Those 1983 assumptions still underpin how the water quality framework is set and managed but inevitably they're out of date. So beyond restoring the proper monitoring process and addressing the upstream sources we ask that the underlying assumptions themselves be reassessed the framework reflects the catchment as it is today, not what it was 40 years ago. 40 years ago we'll be working were with Council. Through the terms of reference where water quality is now a standing item and to see that these obligations as trustee for the lake area are met simple low-cost improvements to water quality close the gap should be fast-tracked like pumping on martard. That's exactly what the lake was designed to do. We welcome support to get things like that done. Finally because the as a wider public role as a stormwater attenuation basin sharing the fair costs which is a framework called the community service obligation the CSO referred to in the financials. Based on the catchment performance is a matter that we consider still as unresolved as part of the TOR. We ask that be progressed openly through this TOR process. We actively want to work with Council through this advisory group and under the TOR framework and we look forward to collectively managing the asset that belongs to Noosa as a whole and we are thankful for the collaborative approach that Council and its staff have taken to work with our committee. Thank you.