Council – Noosa Waters agreement formalised

Margie Maccoll 04/09/2026

In her recent article for Noosa Today, Margie Maccoll talks about the new Terms of Reference agreement between Noosa Council and the NWRA, the history behind it, and discusses with Adrian Reed, NWRA President, the importance of the agreement to residents and Noosa Waters itself.

---

Twenty-six years after Noosa Council became trustee of the Noosa Waters waterways and common land, it has reviewed and, last month, formalised a Terms of Reference (TOR) agreement with the Noosa Waters Residents Association (NWRA).

The Noosa Waters estate is comprised of more than 1100 households, about half of those on the waterfront, and 25 public parks, 17 of which are on the waterway.

The estate waterways are not canals as commonly thought but a Reserve for Local Government (Common Lake Area).

Established in 1990, the Noosa Waters estate was designed as a master-planned community with waterfront and non-waterfront homes and a lock and weir system to manage water levels and provide direct access to the Noosa River.

It was approved on the basis of a 1983 Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and formalised as a Common Lake Area in 1993, with Noosa Council to become trustee.

The trusteeship carries with it operational responsibility for the estate, including streetscapes, parks and the Common Lake Area waterways, and was formally handed from the developer to Noosa Council in 2000.

NWRA was formed about the same time and entered into a partnership agreement with Noosa Council.

Noosa Waters waterfront residents pay a special levy which funds maintenance of specified components of the estate, including the lock and weir system in the canal between Gibson Rd and Gympie Terrace that controls private boat movements in and out of the canal system, and canal maintenance.

The canal maintenance levy is applied for the inspection, maintenance and undertaking of remedial works in the Noosa Waters estate canal area to support the revetment wall system. The program focus is the canal batter and profile and the underlying rock-armour structural support designed to maintain the structural integrity of the adjacent revetment wall system, with the concrete up stand revetment walls at the canal interface considered to be privately owned assets, sitting on the titles of the adjacent properties, and remain an owner maintenance responsibility.

A council staff report delivered to council’s August meetings states the levy, and rectification program arose in 2013/14 following protracted negotiations with Noosa Water residents involving support failure of the canal batters and rock armouring that was endangering the owner wall assets.

The review looked at the applicability of the special levy, as well as clarification on maintenance of other infrastructure items in Noosa Waters that are funded through general rates, such as water quality within the estate and acoustic barriers.

Acoustic barriers were installed by Council as part of the Eenie Creek Road arterial constructed to the south of the estate in the period 2005 to 2008. The barriers were specified in the EIS for the arterial to meet specified acoustic attenuation objectives.

Infrastructure items in Noosa Waters funded by general rates include a salinity pump which has an inlet on the Noosa River near to Chaplin Park, pumps river water though to the head of the canal system to provide flow to head of the canal waterway and is fundamental to water quality in the canal system.

“NWRA representatives have expressed a desire for an upgraded pump system to variably time intake of river water on the high tide to improve visual water quality, and reduce turbidity for sediment intake on the low tide,” the review states.

“A key concern for the NWRA is water quality in the canal system, and obligations upon Council as the trustee to meet water quality objectives defined under the Queensland Government Environmental Protection (Water and Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2019.”

Council, in partnership with the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association (NICA), undertake water quality monitoring across the Noosa River and lakes systems including the Noosa canal inflow at the waterfall and the Noosa canal outflow at the lock and weir testing indicates that in situ parameters are generally within the Queensland Government department water quality guidelines, the report states.

According to the report intermittingly nuisance algae forms in the canal system, likely resulting from spike in nutrient levels and last year council undertook a reactive nuisance algae removal program due to large masses of algae forming in sections of the canal system.

Aside from the special levies, a Community Service Obligation (CSO) has been historically applied to the levy in recognition of the broader public benefit the Noosa Waters waterway provides.

The waterway receives and manages stormwater from a catchment, a significant proportion of which lies outside the developed estate. It was designed and approved on that basis under the original environmental frameworks for Noosa Waters, being the 1983 EIS and its October 1991 and August 1992 supplements, which set the assumptions for the volume of catchment water planned to enter the canal estate.

The review shows the NWRA considers the approach should be taken that the CSO “reflects the principle that the cost of the waterway is shared to recognise its broader public and catchment drainage role, and is not borne by waterfront owners alone”.

In a deputation delivered to council’s August ordinary meeting NWRA president Adrian Reed highlighted the costs through levies to waterfront residents and responsibilities of council in maintaining the common lake area.

Mr Reed described Noosa Waters not a private canal for waterfront owners but as a common lake area with council as trustee and a stormwater drainage system for 284ha of catchment, about 44 per cent lying outside the estate, that serves the wider community.

Throughout this year the review has looked closely at the levies and identified a number of costs charged to residents that are the responsibility of council as trustee, he said, giving examples of salinity pumps, replacement of those pumps and pipe work.

Original approval in 1983 allocated maintenance of water quality to be met by council general rates, yet over the past two decades waterfront owners have effectively paid twice through the waterfront levy and general rates, he said.

“That’s the kind of clarity we’re looking for and as we look ahead we’re looking at a clear shared understanding of what the levies fund and what council’s responsibilities fund as trustee,” he said.

Mr Reed said the reassurance offered by council that it is meeting guidelines as trustee on water quality doesn’t fully tell the story that council is meeting guidelines and nor is it a view shared by NWRA.

“Currently the lake area is being held to a more relaxed, moderately disturbed standard, well below the ecological value that Noosa River demands that it drains into and below standards that the lake was originally approved and that council is obligated to maintain,” he said.

“Of the few things that are measured the inflow test position meets only that relaxed bar 65 per cent of the time according to the 2025 NICA annual report.”

The catchment has changed enormously since original approval with far greater stormwater drainage, he said.

Mr Reed said because the waterway serves a wider public role as a stormwater continuation basin, sharing the fair costs, which is a framework for community service obligations based on catchment performance, is a matter we consider still unresolved as part of the TOR, and he asked for it to be progressed.

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 and are thankful for the collaborative approach council has taken, he said.