Page 3443 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Unfortunately, it looks as though the national limits in the basin will be calculated volumetrically, which does not allow for flexibility around wet and dry periods or for critical low and medium flow years.
Climate change is likely to exacerbate these issues, rendering arid zone agriculture more water dependent due to enhanced evaporation rates. It will also increase desert area and decrease winter rains. It may also bring more high-intensity summer rainfall. The Greens, advised by hydrologists and hydrogeologists, believe that groundwater is a more finite resource than had been previously thought. To provide a crucial water resource if the drought continues, groundwater needs to be effectively managed and have equal footing with surface water. The general community seems to believe that groundwater is inexhaustible and can be extracted infinitely without repercussions. I know that our ACT government advises rural landholders on more sustainable dam building, given that aquifers are a more efficient storage place than dams in terms of preventing evaporation.
Groundwater and surface water are interconnected, and are interchangeable resources in many regions of Australia, and some aquatic ecosystems rely on groundwater, especially during drought. The failure to recognise the link between ground and surface water in the Murray-Darling Basin means that some proportion of the water available for consumption is accounted for twice—allocated both as surface water and again as groundwater.
I hope that this national plan conveys an understanding of the concept of conjunctive water management across the country and the consequences for surface flows and environmental assets. Other consequences can be falling water tables, reduction of groundwater flow to sustain wetlands, springs and rivers, irrevocably salinised or polluted groundwater, and land subsidence. These are major issues across the basin. Groundwater can only be recharged by rainfall, so it is not an abundant alternative to river water, although in many cases groundwater can boost river flows.
In discussing the Water Resources Bill a few months ago, I pointed out that the ACT lacks hydrology expertise. Twenty years ago, the New South Wales Department of Natural Resources had at least 50 groundwater experts, but this has fallen to fewer than 20. In the ACT, we have only two or three groundwater experts giving advice to our environment department. We need more hydrologists to deal with the continued water shortages in Australia. I hope that Mr Stefaniak now understands that environmental flows do not steal water from the ACT, but help to ensure that the river has sufficient water to maintain the riparian ecology and support the needs of the river’s fish.
We need to become better at water efficiency in the ACT. I note the extra funding for water demand reduction in the supplementary appropriation bill yesterday. However, I have yet to hear the government announce more attractive financial incentives for greywater systems, dual flush toilets and other initiatives. South Australia and the ACT offer fewer incentives than all the other states. Some places—for example, Queanbeyan—have at their disposal not only their state offers but also local municipality initiatives. In this vein, I am glad to see funding to help public housing tenants and schools reduce their water usage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .