The decision to provide Australia with irrigation schemes was driven by a desire for self-sufficiency, the wisdom of which was demonstrated, soon after the plans were adopted, with the outbreak of World War 1.
I am horrified by the way the clever thinking and hard work of our ancestors is now being trampled on by a mad, subsidy-driven scramble to cover land that has been developed to make the best use of our irrigation facilities with solar collectors which could easily be located on non-irrigated land.
It is no mere accident of fate that the land which the solar power company proposes covering with solar panels is well endowed with sunlight; plants are solar collectors (and scavengers of atmospheric carbon dioxide) too.
Please reject any planned solar farms where they impact on our very necessary ability to feed ourselves. Australia has plenty of land which is unsuitable for horticulture.
If we must have solar farms, they should be located there.

SUBMISSIONS SOLAR FARM PROJECTS ON PRIME AGRICULTURAL AND MIL FOOTPRINT LAND at Currawarra and Tarleigh.
THIS SHORT FORM SUBMISSION IS SOUGHT TO BE EXPANDED ON BUT IS FILED TO MEET THE UNWORKABLE DEADLINE FOR A FARMING COMMUNITY IN THE MIDDLE OF HARVEST

This submission refers to the draft Large Scale Solar energy Guideline currently on exhibition

1. A key assessment issue for such a project is LAND USE AND COMPATIBILITY
There is a fundamental question to be answered here. The NSW government in its own plans for the Riverina Murray seeks to ensure healthy production from the farming community. The Federal government seeks likewise to ensure that agricultural production is promoted.
The proposal to place a solar farm on prime irrigated land or land within the irrigation infrastructure is fundamentally flawed. The uses are simply not compatible. There is a limited irrigation footprint available to produce high-end crops and other farming enterprises upon such land. The sites chosen fall within that footprint.
I quote from the draft guidelines for Solar Development of the NSW government
" To encourage industry to undertake suitable site selection for solar proposals, including associated infrastructure, to reduce the likelihood and extent of land use conflict and environmental impacts"

It is simply illogical to say that the current owner of the land "will use the Water on other properties" within the footprint as a rationale for choosing such land as against dry land or rangeland properties. There was a clear limit set by the Commonwealth on the buy back of water in the district due to the devastating effects that recent buy back scheme has had on the whole community. This is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" on a large environmental scale.
By comparison on at least one of the proposed sites "Currawarra", if one continues down the road next to the power lines around ten minutes there is available open rangeland country; not part of the MIL irrigation district, that can be developed.
Under the heading Land Use and Resources the EIS for this project states that the land is located within a " rural area: ... with predominantly broad scale agricultural land uses". What it seems to miss is that this property has a main irrigation channel running smack bang through the middle of it, has had vast improvements over many years and with different owners to its irrigation infrastructure; including recently one of the new expensive "flume gate" systems paid for under the PINOP scheme PART TAXPAYER FUNDED. We are told in the report that " the suspension of cropping for the life of the solar farm would represent a potential impact on only a small percentage of local and regional production and would be potentially offset by increased productivity at other properties held in the locality by the landowner" " the proposal would not affect unique or significant agricultural land"
I submit that every piece of irrigated land within the MIL footprint is UNIQUE and SIGNIFICANT. This property has and is able to grow food for Australia and the world. It is able not only to grow "Barley and sheep grazing" as per the EIS but has done in the past and can grow rice and other high value crops.
I also query the landholder's claim of small tonnage from this property when comparative tonnage on neighbouring land is vastly higher. There has been no proper investigation of the purported facts upon which this EIS stands
SOCIO ECONOMIC ASSESMENT
The whole area of the MIL footprint has been affected by the millennium drought and the MDBP with the consequential buy back of water. Why is it proposed to add further to the "holey cheese effect"? Why not have a win win and build a solar farm with access to the same power grid down the road on dry land country or elsewhere on dry land country? Why take away more prime land that can be irrigated? There is simply NO guarantee the current owner will use the water on another property or will not sell and move on as indeed the company seeking to develop has as its stated intention, i.e. to develop sell and move on. Who then is responsible?
PUBLIC INTEREST
What are the DIRECT REGIONAL BENEFITS of shutting down a prime irrigation property? There might be some jobs available during development. However in comparison a food producing property is shut down for up to 30 years. Add up that amount of rice barley wheat canola etc. The solar farm is not going to power the town of Deniliquin or provide cheap electricity for the residents. It will produce energy that will be sold benefiting only the seller of same on an immediate basis. I am not against and in fact am all for alternative energy and in particular SOLAR energy. However when we have VAST amounts of non-irrigated land available and on the "grid" the whole EIS seems based upon a conflict of public interest
One only has to look at the major and devastating affect on small rural communities of the MDBP and or the millennium drought to know that the more properties that are shut down and turned into dry land runs the greater the impact on the whole of the community
AREAS OF CONSTRAINT
This land is important agricultural land that is proposed to be in effect shut down for 30 years. 30 years is a long time to manage the devastating effect of another closure of two properties to significant food production
LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
There simply was NO consultation prior to submitting the plan. The first many local landholders heard was upon reading this in the local paper. Had they been consulted earlier then no doubt many might have suggested alternate sites close to the grid but not on the MIL footprint
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is expected the solar "farm" "would operate for 30 years and when ceases farm infrastructure soil condition and vegetation cover within the project would be reinstated in consultation with the landowner and consistent with land use requirements" What does that mean? Who will (a) own the "solar" farm in 30 years and (b) own the farm in 30 years? The company seeking to secure approval, RES Australia Pty Ltd has already publicly stated that its intention is to sell the solar farm within a few short years of developing it (b) Will the current owners still own the land in 30 Years? Who will honour this arrangement???
There will be vegetation clearing with "offsets" Who will be responsible for the Offsets? The report documents the proposed removal of a significant number of "hollow bearing trees" and remnant vegetation. The proposed " offset planting is in flood affected land and simply will not survive any wet year
THE SUPERB PARROT
Quoting from the EIS " the threatened Superb Parrot.. was recorded at several locations within and adjacent to the proposal site" "Additional surveys would be conducted prior to the completion of the Submission Report and project approval between September and December to confirm the use of the development envelope as a breeding resource. If confirmed in an area that cannot be avoided impact calculations would be undertaken and used to update the "BOS" (balance of systems) and "BAR" (Bio Diversity Report) such that this species is appropriately offset" No subsequent survey has been provided
Indeed if one has been done who did it? Curiously there are several superb parrot habitats on near properties and this EIS simply seeks to bulldoze the remaining remnant trees and hollow trees that provide prime breeding habitat. Again why not use other land without this risk??
How does one " appropriately offset" a breeding zone of the Superb Parrot. Who is and will be responsible for such appropriate offset?
Finally the draft guidelines provide that engagement with the local community should be genuine inclusive and honest and the local community should be involved early BEFORE site selection.
That simply has not happened here
Further lengthy submissions will be provided


Yours faithfully
Robyn Wheeler
East Wandook
Deniliquin NSW

This is a submission stating that Myself and my family do not support the Tarleigh Park Solar project moving forward.
These are my main concerns:
Poor use of prime irrigation country. An aim of many young families such as ours is to one day own productive land that produces food for our country. It is therefore deeply concerning that prime country such as that designated for the Tarleigh Park Solar Project be used for energy production. It seems illogical to use all ready developed farming country instead of undeveloped grazing country within 30kms from the proposed site.
Land Value. From my research there is no evidence to confidently confirm that neighbouring properties will not decrease in value. Our family farm lies 1.2 km from the proposed solar project. This farm is not only our future but the future of our children. To think it could be devalued by the Tarleigh Park Solar Project for the next 30 years causes profound anxiety and stress for us.

My husband and I are third generation farmers in the Blighty district.
As agricultural contractors, we have serious concerns how heavy machinery will be able to be moved along Parfrey Road, which is narrow and unstable. When this road becomes wet, it becomes dangerous to use. I cannot see how the works proposed can be achieved without significant impact. The choice of land that has been chosen for RES to build their solar plant is absolutely ludicrous.
This area is highly productive agricultural land that has been farmed for generations. This land has been specifically developed to grow food and contribute to feeding the people of Australia and overseas.
The Snowy Hydro Scheme was built not only to drought proof this inland country but to sustain itself with food.
This is what 99 percent of the farmers in this district do and what they are incredibly skilled at. Grow food, not watch valuable land being turned into an industrial site with noxious weeds growing, spreading to our land and becoming a major vermin and fire risk to the nearby farms.
The high proportion of farmers and their families in this area have tremendous respect and honour the land they work. They understand that they are the custodians of the land, as many now have younger members of their families who are now involved in the family farms, who have a great desire to continue the tradition.
The Blighty area has major irrigation infrastructure. How absolutely absurd to use this developed country to house solar panels and what a huge waste of the taxpayer's money.

And to think that RES thinks that their short term employment opportunities will sustain the area. How nonsensical.
We strongly object to this proposal being allowed in the Blighty area. So much of our great land is suitable for large scale solar industry. You only need to travel ten kilometres north and there is appropriate land to house this industry.
Leave this land for what it can produce - food and fibre.

I disagree with this proposal. We reside about 15km from the proposed location and although I support the concept of solar energy, I do not think it needs to be developed on what is prime farming land surrounded by many farming residents. I am certain that there would be any number of alternative sites that would not impact on farming and local residents as this proposed development would.

This is a submission stating that I along with my family don't want the Tarleigh Park Solar project moving forward.



Our two main concerns are as follows



SAFETY: Our family regularly moves heavy machinery (tractors, air seeder, combine harvesters along Parfrey rd which is narrow and unstable. We enter and exit very tight gateways whilst doing contract work along the road. I cannot see how works proposed can be done without the potential for a serious accident. When Parfrey rd is wet it becomes extremely unstable and cannot carry heavy vehicles safely.



LOCATION: I along with my family cannot understand why both the Currawarra and Tarleigh Park projects are being put on Prime irrigation farming land. The buyback of water has been hard enough on an area designed to be the food bowl of the nation, as a young farmer this is very concerning. Why don't we move them 10km North onto plain country?

I agree with alternative power production, but cannot see why it needs to be situated amongst viable family farms when there are any number of locations further away from the irrigation area that would be eminently suitable. This area should be kept for food and milk production only! Thank you

As an adjoining property to the proposed Solar Farm on the northern boundary, I would be very disappointed to see the destruction of prime farming land with the construction of this big conglomeration of solar panels and other equipment. I was hoping to pass our land onto our children, but I don't believe the area will maintain enough of it's present "agricultural only" viability to make it somewhere they would want to live and work. I fear the irrigation capabilities will be seriously impeded by the removal of water on this parcel of land even if the company concerned says if has made provision to use the water elsewhere.

I am not against solar energy in principal in certain locations , ( I current have 2 separate 9.7 KVA , approx 28 panels, installation on farm sheds) but this current choice of location is a considerably concern for surrounding landholders. Not to mention such poor usage of prime land.
Traffic movement along the dirt roads which is impassable when wet , is a concern.
There isn't any employment benefit to the local community.
Native Forna and wild life will be removed in the developement.
Recently Government funded over head irrigation ( e.g. Lateral irrigators) will be removed , and possibly sold off .
Government funded irrigation outlets in supply channels will not be used, ( piop , government program) recently installed.
Can anyone be sure that this will not devalue our highly valued 3rd generation producing farm, which is our home, our income ,our super and our annuity for our children.
Also our home is in clear view of the proposed solar site so it would be a total eyesore to a view that is attractive and fitting to the area. With only 700 metres between, the possibility of glare could also be a devastating issue.

Our main concerns and objections are as follows:
The expanse of solar panels will create visual problems from the air and the road. Our property is located on the north side and a major concern is the glare from the panels. It will also devalue our property. We have been told by persons interesting in buying our farm that they would not buy it with the solar farm next door, not that we are looking to sell it.
The infrastructure connecting the proposed site to the main road is not built to cope with a large volumes of heavy traffic. It is not a all weather road. A high volume of heavy vehicles will destroy the road and become an accident waiting to happen.
We are also concerned about the loss of ability to farm using practices suited to the area, such as, plowing and spraying. Both would create dust on the panels and reduce their output. Who will be liable for the loss of energy generated from a dust covering, or for cleaning the panels?
Another concern is the lack of concrete knowledge of what effects such a concentrated power output is going to have on the local power supply, WiFi, communication services, health, etc.
We also object to the economic loss to the area. The proposed site is a large expanse of high value farmland that has had farming infrastructure added to it using government subsidies to improve water management. As farmland, it could be managed well to produce crops or be used for grazing. both of which return an annual economic benefit to the area through the use of services and the sale and transport of the product.
By turning this land into a solar farm the annual economic benefits to the area stop. A one off payment, contracted to workers out of the region, for a solar farm that will not even provide clean energy to the local area and will instead travel through hundreds of kilometers of electrical wire to somewhere else. The rights to broker the electricity itself will likely be sold off to overseas companies. This land will never result in any economic benefit to the area and will only result in an eyesore.
Land closer to the intended destination for the power would be cheaper and not rob farmers of arable land.
Not to mention that this use of land that farmers have worked so hard to maintain and improve is emotionally distressing. It is distressing to know that farmland is being taken up by solar panels when there is arid, unproductive land that could be used instead.