Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4674 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Given that this document, as I understand it-and please correct me if I am wrong-is to stimulate discussion in the community and to inform the government's policy on how to best measure and balance the environmental, social and economic costs of each option, why is it that in this document there has been a reluctance to link even the information that you have in the appendix 2 on riparian zone management with the notion of potential dams? Why has there not been a preparedness to spell out much more clearly the environmental impacts of the particular options of dams in the ACT?

MR STANHOPE: Ms Tucker, there is a preparedness to do that. It has not been done in this document. As I have indicated-and I think it is a comment and a statement that has been oft made-Actew has engaged a range of experts and consultants to advise it on a whole range of issues around the capacity of our water supply to meet our needs into the future.

We are in the process of doing a significant amount of work in relation to a whole range of variables. It is an incredibly complex task to match predictions in relation to population growth with predictions that many are making of the impact of climate change on rainfall patterns within Canberra and the region; issues around the extent to which the damage that the Cotter catchment suffered as a result of the bushfires will affect the water yield in the Cotter catchment over the next 10 to 30 years, and the yield will change very significantly. There is a whole range of variables. While there is some detailed research that has not been concluded, we are trying to match all of those.

As I say, Actew is doing detailed work on this. It has not completed that yet and it will not be complete for another five to six weeks yet. When it is it will be provided to government in terms of the range of potential options, which essentially come down to four. One is our capacity to avoid the construction or the development of any new water supply source-whether or not we can into the future avoid the construction of a dam or construction of any other major infrastructure through steps that we may take. Many people believe that is drawing a long bow; many people believe intuitively that it is impossible. I would like to have a look at the detailed work or research in relation to our capacity to do that.

Then there is a supplementary or secondary consideration in relation to that: if you believe you cannot put off the fateful day in relation to the construction of a new dam or the development of some other water supply option, for how long can the decision be delayed? Then there is another consideration in relation to that: you can delay the decision for so long but for how long can you delay the construction? These are all fundamentally important questions.

There are some that say that we will not need a new water supply facility for 15 years. But in order to achieve that, the decision needs to be made within, say, the next three years. There are others who would say that perhaps the decision could be put off for 10 years, and work fast at the time. There is an issue in relation to the sites that we have currently preserved for new dams. In the ACT we have reserved sites at both Mount Corrie and Mount Tennent.

Just lately and latterly there is perhaps the more lateral proposal which has not been seriously raised previously that a cheaper and intuitively more environmentally friendly prospect is to develop or construct a pipeline from Tantangara to the ACT. But just think

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .