Margie Maccoll
“A bit disappointed,“ was how Cr Amelia Lorentson greeted a council staff report she said failed to answer questions on Burgess Creek she asked of staff three months earlier, sparking a robust debate at Monday’s general committee meeting and concluding with her apology.
On 16 June Cr Lorentson asked staff to report back on a range of issues stemming from residents’ concerns about wastewater and stormwater flows into Burgess Creek, its impact on the environment and public health risk.
Questions focused on erosion at the creek mouth, outflows and water quality from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and stormwater discharging into Burgess Creek, and stormwater management and infrastructure for the Burgess Creek Sub-catchment. Also requested was information on downstream erosion of dunes and beaches resulting from stormwater and wastewater flows as well as funding options and solutions.
Staff said they had been undertaking a significant body of work, engaging Unitywater, visiting its monitoring sites and undertaking an overall investigation of the shire catchment in collaboration with Healthy Land and Water with interest from the bush care program.
Council heard staff proposed the infrastructure team look at erosion issues from all creeks throughout the shire costed as a $200,000 piece of work that hadn’t yet been budgeted for.
Officers said the issues at Burgess Creek were complicated by a lack of formal pedestrian access with informal access via trails adding to the erosion problem, which would be investigated to determine “natural solutions“ to reduce the impact to dunes.
They agreed with Cr Joe Jurisevic when he suggested work on beach access points was already covered under the foreshore management plan, but said Burgess Creek required more work because of the way it meandered north and south depending on storm activity and stormwater runoff.
One officer said universities were involved in monitoring the creek’s behaviour in response to wave action and storm events and their findings would inform management actions.
However, Cr Lorentson said her questions were confined to Burgess Creek, not the entire catchment, and she had expected the matter “be treated with urgency and real conviction“ which she identified to be lacking in the report.
“My motion raised residents’ concerns about damage happening at the foreshore at Burgess Creek and concerns regarding discolouration of water flow and the impacts on coastal ecosystems,“ she said.
“Residents believe that treated wastewater and stormwater flowing in the creek is a health risk.“
Cr Lorentson said council’s own website and health warning signs at the beach supported their concerns there was a risk.
This report understates the link between stormwater and effluent discharge into Burgess Creek as a major cause of erosion happening at Burgess Creek, she said. It overstates foot traffic as the primary cause of erosion.
“The report fails to provide what I requested – data and information – Unitywater figures on the amount of wastewater discharged, the amount of stormwater being discharged, how much effluent, what are acceptable levels,“ she said.
“Where is this information? Why is it not provided? We can’t fix a problem unless we understand or investigate the cause.“
Cr Lorentson said council needed to know what levels were permitted under the environmental authority, were the levels good enough and was this best practice.
We’re potentially tolerating activity and practices that are compromising the environment, she said.
An officer explained it had taken time to obtain information and the issues were integrated.
She said communicating with Unitywater had been “very constructive“ and officers had come a long way in understanding the history and legacy of the matter.
Unitywater’s Water Matters plan was an important first step in planning for Burgess Creek, she said.
The officer said Unitywater was well aware of community concerns and council had asked them to slow their Water Matters proceedings in order to organise a community consultation process early next year with a community forum to allow community input into management options.
Council also heard Unitywater had agreed just Monday morning to provide the data requested.
When Cr Jurisevic asked why the questions had morphed into something different from what was requested, staff replied that four to five management issues were involved including the way stormwater was managed across the catchment.
The Burgess Creek catchment covers roughly 545 hectares, draining from the back of residential developments in Noosa Head, through bushland and community facilities near Eenie Creek Road, and then through a Council-managed Bushland Reserve and National Park to discharge directly into the Coral Sea at Sunshine Beach.
Officers said work was being done to determine the scope of the project and steps had been made to involve the Peregian Beach digital hub in establishing remote sensor water monitoring and plans mooted to establish a community advisory group.
Cr Lorentson thanked officers for clarifying the situation and apologised for her initial response.
She said there were two-three questions that needed to be answered.
Are we OK with Unitywater discharging stormwater and treated sewage into our creeks and beaches? Are we OK with current practices?
If it was OK and met recycled water criteria, we should be having a conversation about reusing that water, she said.
