Please see attached submission addressing electricity security and pricing.

Hello Eleanor,
Thanks for contacting LLS for agency consideration of Tarleigh Park Solar Project (SSD 8436).
Local Land Services provides consideration to, and comment in respect of, the zone of the land and native vegetation clearing. For our agency's purpose, the land is considered to be regulated land subject to authorisation for removal of native vegetation under the Local Land Services Act 2013.

The EIS includes the below, as noted:
* The land proposed for SSD 8436 is freehold (Lot 88 DP756339) and zoned RU1 - Primary Production.
* The development proposed is deemed State Significant Development, a major project for NSW.
* I have reviewed the EIS with particular regard to the clearing/removal of native vegetation.
* 5.1.7 correctly identifies the land is subject to PVP 12585
* Vegetation clearing is to be offset, consistent with a Biodiversity Offset Strategy included in the BAR.
* A Biodiversity Offset Plan (BOP) will be developed and implemented as part of the proposal. The offset will be managed in perpetuity, and established subject to consent conditions within 2 years of construction.
LLS response:
Clearing provisions under the Local Land Services Act 2013, section 60O states;
For the purposes of this Part, the clearing of native vegetation in a regulated rural area is authorised under other legislation in any of the following cases:
(a) The clearing was authorised by (i) a development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, or
(ii) a State significant infrastructure approval under Part 5.1 of that Act

The Tarleigh Park Solar Farm proposal, including vegetation clearing, is being assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. The potential impacts on native vegetation are discussed in section 8.1 of the report.

Accordingly as the EIS gives consideration for such clearing, LLS does not provide any additional consent as an agency.

In addition, PVP 12585 issued by Murray CMA remains valid, and authorises the clearing of identified paddock trees. Under the PVP an offset is established for a Grey Box Woodland offset site on the northern boundary of the property. The offset site is to be protected and managed for conservation, in perpetuity, and is located outside the proposed development envelope.

In summary, the EIS completely addresses matters with respect to vegetation clearing, offsetting and biodiversity requirements and authorises activities via the Planning legislation pathway.
Local Land Services has no further comment in respect to matters under Part 5 of the Local Land Services Act 2013.

Regards
--
Troy Hitchon | Regional Services Officer
Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Southern region

Postal Address: PO Box 61, Deniliquin, NSW, 2710
Address: 449 Charlotte St, Deniliquin, NSW, 2710

Firstly, I am a supporter of alternative energy and solar is but one form that needs exploiting in Australia. The proposal to turn this productive irrigation land into a solar farm is not of benefit to the community nor to Australia's ability to efficiently produce food in a diminishing amount of viable available land. This farm I am lead to believe has already had a lot of Government money spend on upgrading its irrigation system to produce food more efficiently and it seems a waste to now abandon all this investment by both public and private money. Murray Irrigation has also spent both shareholders and public money improving water delivery to this and neighbouring sites. There is many more areas close by and to the north where a solar farm would have minimal impact on highly productive land. This proposal has no inbuilt restoration of the land after the proposed thirty year life span, are we to assume that more public money will be spent removing the panels and supporting infrastructure or is this to become a derelict unproductive piece of landscape.To summarize it is wrong and I object to placing a solar farm at this location.

SUBMISSIONS ON 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 AND PRE CHRISTMAS
THE COMPANY HAS HAD YEARS TO PREPARE AND THE TIMING IS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO MINIMISE OBJECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT

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

1. Large Scale Solar Energy may be alleged to be essential but not at the expense of removing fully developed high grade state of the art irrigation land that has been paid for in part by the public purse and developed over generations. The proposed Sites at Tarleigh and Currawarra are in the MIL footprint which was designed and built to drought proof Australia. Irrigation is critical for Australian Food And Fibre production. Even more so when market gardens are being gobbled up by the "Urban Sprawl". Our Prime Ministers have referred to the Riverina and the North East irrigation areas of Victoria as the " food bowl of asia". Our rice is exported to 60 countries around the World. And yet we are supposed to accept removal of highly productive Irrigation Land when there is SO much other land available in this vast land of ours. It is incongruous.
2. LAND USE CONFLICT
This use of land is in DIRECT conflict with its history; its National and State Government development Plans and indeed the Current NSW Government forward plans for the Riverina Murray District. Certainly the Currawarra property in the past has grown Rice, been a dairy farm and produced food and stock.
The proposed developments are allegedly, according to the EIS, only taking a small percentage of irrigated land out of production. However;
(A) That statistic does not take into account that both properties are fully developed with state of the art MIL infrastructure and improvements including "flume gates" paid for by the Taxpayer!
(B) Small percentages might seem nothing to a bureaucrat but as we have seen in the MDBP, the so called numbers and statistics did not match up with real life and the effect on local communities and the flow on effect in rural towns schools etc.
(C ) The alleged " tonnage" of production on these properties in the EIS bears no resemblance to neighbouring properties and is not based upon any returns that have been produced in the EIS. It is laughable that a report could be so transparently wrong on such an issue. Just go and look next door. It comes down to management.
3 SOCIO ECONOMIC ASSESMENT
The Powell Jenson Gibson report in 1985 " the Economic Impact of Irrigated Agriculture in NSW" indicated that the impact is around a five fold multiplier effect on the National Economy of Farm gate gross production. 1000 hectares of Irrigated land in the areas of Currawarra and Tarleigh is able to produce at least 800K to 1 Million of farm gate product per annum if one compares similar properties in the area. This is a loss not only to the local community but to the nation. The Solar Farm does not produce anything other than electricity without (save initial labour IF using local people and alleged 4 or 5 staff ongoing) any comparative farm gate production. There is NO comparative study provided in the EIS.
In fact, other irrigators will have to PAY MORE for the infrastructure. In 30 years time when the alleged decommissioning occurs are these properties then expecting to be turned back into irrigated farms whilst OTHER IRRIGATORS have carried the COST BURDEN of maintaining the systems?? Who will actually own the farm? Will the current owners still own it? Will the SOLAR FARM be owned by the same company who has already publicly stated it will develop and then sell within a few short years? WHO will be responsible? The idea of any RESPONSIBILITY in this EIS is a FARCE.
It is alleged that the current owner will use " water" on another property. What if the current owner has already sold the water (and the EIS is silent on that issue)? Then, like many irrigators who sold water to survive the Millenium Drought (and were to use the money for water efficiency projects), the current owner must buy water in on a needs basis. It is NOT that simple as transferring water and this EIS may be fundamentally misleading the public on this issue.
In any event, there IS NO GURANTEE that the owner will use the water on another property or not sell and move on. The "other property" referred to in the EIS. Query why is it not at maximum production in any event???
4 PUBLIC INTEREST
School Children going by on their school bus each day (four bus loads of children every day ) past Currawarra are going to get the wrong message. They are going to know that big business and big money mean more than their little farms and producing food for Australia. Are we teaching them to aspire to one of the so called 4 or 5 jobs for both Solar Projects in running these places when they leave school?? Are we giving them a positive message about the future or irrigated farming in the MIL district??? Or are we telling them that there is no future in producing food.
In Japan and in Europe farmers are revered. That is because they STARVED during the World Wars. We are teaching our children to have no PRIDE in what we do. To be a farmer is to be a second rate citizen.
The energy produced by this Solar Farm is going to the National Grid and not into the local community.
The National Grid will not want to buy excess solar energy from those small farm panels (such as ourselves) in the district.
5. AREAS OF CONSTRAINT
This land is prime irrigated agricultural land that is to be shut down for 30 years. The reality is it will be shut down forever. 30 years is a long time to manage the devastating effect of another closure of two properties with access to irrigation and able to make significant food production. This won't be for 30 years the panels will be replaced and this land will never be reverted back to farming country. That is in DIRECT Conflict with the whole reason for putting irrigation infrastructure and building MIL area
6. LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
There was NO consultation or discussion as to the proposed location prior to submitting the plan. As locals we could have suggested far better locations that would not have destroyed prime irrigation land. The lack of consultation is in direct conflict with the NSW draft guidelines on Large Scale Solar Projects.

When " consultation" later happened it was set up under a " divide and conquer" plan where the company had tables set up so that as an individual you were picked off by those well versed in "spin". There was no collective presentation and therefore hard to know what "spin" was "spun" to each individual. This is not cricket. The examples already mentioned in this submission of the "spin" re productivity of these properties and water use is a prime example of misleading behaviour.
"Tarleigh" sits below an elevated residence on the next property who looks out at present on to a beautiful farming property. This will be replaced to a view of glaring SOLAR PANELS. Again no amount of screening will resolve this issue and further see comments on screening trees below. Again why NOT BUILD THESE FARMS ON NON CONFLICTED USE LAND
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
There is no mention in the EIS of Kangaroo flow and movement. The proposed security fence around the properties will prevent such flow and cause trapping and altered movement on other properties surrounding the areas.

The EIS states
"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"
The company RES cannot make such a statement when they have publicly stated they will SELL these Developments in a few short years.
It is unlikely these Developments would be dismantled in any event. It is more likely that the panels will be replaced.
There is a history of "offsets" not actually happening E.g. with tree removal. WHO will Police the so-called " OFFSETS"??
Already the so-called " boundary screening trees" are not planned to be even PLANTED until the SOLAR FARM IS BUILT!! Trees take a long time to have any shade or screening value. One might ask WHY that is left until LAST?? Will a new owner of the Solar Farm WATER the young trees??? It is all talk and no action on the environmental scale. Screening should be a FIRST requirement not LAST

THE SUPERB PARROT

Hollow trees are planned to be removed from this property. Such trees are critical for birds and marsupials
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
HOW DOES ONE "OFFSET" a SUPERB PARROT???.
HOW DOES ONE "OFFSET" a SUPERB PARROT's BREEDING GROUND???.
This is just hyperbole and humbug!

Andrew Hermiston
East Wandook
Deniliquin NSW

This development is been constructed on `high-grade' agricultural land, with already established `high-tech' irrigation infrastructure. RES (the solar company) have picked some of the best soils/ with already established high tech irrigation country in our district. It does not make sense to construct this solar farm on the current proposed sites and remove the current infrastructure geared to produce food. Current infrastructure that will be taken out of production include 2 x lateral move sprinkler irrigators, 2 x 100+meg storage dams, 2 x deep bore, 4 x spear points. We believe the company has not done there proper duediagance in researching other alternative sites. It would make sense to put this development on `low-grade agricultural country' such as grazing country that has not had millions of dollars of tax paid dollars spent on it already to establish the irrigation blocks

- Site is prime irrigation agricultural land, with irrigation infrastructure that should continue to be utilised for irrigation farming.
-This project will take away major food growing opportunities for the southern Riverina;
- what are the strategic impacts on the loss of agricultural production area for the region?
- l am concerned about the visual pollution & amenity impacts of a solar farm in this area, it will change the landscape signifcantly
- where are the State Guidelines on solar farms and shouldn't this project wait until they are finalised;
- the exhibition period for this project should be extended to allow for key community & agricultural community groups to have input;
- why not select a site further north where the visual landscape from the road is less and the value of agricultural land is less & there isn't the invested irrigation infrastructure

This project adjoins my Wife's families farm and I object to its approval on the basis that I and the community have not receive or been able to source sufficient information on the impact of the proposed project.
The EIS insufficient addresses the following;
- Visual impact from from the adjoining properties.
- Loss of prime agricultural land.
- Impact on farming operations of the adjoining properties
- Value impact of adjoining properties
- health impact of the project on the community
- safety aspects of running heavy construction traffic on an unsealed rural lane-way used by multiple families as primary access to their residential property.
My children, nephew and niece are often transported on Parfrays Road and I would find it an unacceptable risk to allow construction activities on it at any stage.

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.