Page 1434 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from Murrumbidgee across to Googong dam; and the investigation of the design of a demonstration water purification plant. These were announced by the Chief Minister in October 2007 along with other measures relating to demand management and smart metering.
Since the Chief Minister’s announcement, there have been a number of developments which provide greater scope and flexibility to enable the ACT to enhance its water security. Specifically, last year, the ACT obtained a 150-year lease over Googong dam, resolving the ownership question of that key asset. The ACT resolved the cap diversion issue under the Murray-Darling Basin agreement with a cap of 42 gigalitres net extractions adjusted for population growth and with two gigalitres to be provided to meet our Living Murray initiative commitments. There has also been significant progress on the development of interstate water trading in the Murray-Darling Basin. These developments provide greater opportunities for the ACT to enhance and diversify its water security planning.
As a result, given the shift in rainfall patterns now being experienced as a result of both climate change and periodic drought, and taking the impact of measures to date into account, there is a need to revisit our concept and definition of water security. There is a need to define water security parameters to guide our future planning and management and to take account of social, economic and environmental factors. The development of these parameters will assist in addressing future water supply and demand requirements and will give much needed certainty to the community.
The immediate and most obvious response to decreasing rainfall across the cities and towns of south-eastern Australia has been to implement water restrictions. Water restrictions have their place, but they are, by nature, temporary measures to meet temporary conditions. In persistent conditions, such as those we now face, new measures are needed and strict controls on usage need to be reserved for the unusual events rather than to be sustained indefinitely. It will also prove to be difficult to maintain community support for prolonged and severe water restrictions if other measures are not also taken to improve the security of supply.
Our temporary water restrictions have been very effective measures in reducing consumption, and the people of Canberra must again be thanked for their support of the water restrictions regime. But there has been a cost in bringing in water restrictions for Canberrans and on Canberra’s landscape and resources. The cost of time in water restrictions can be gauged against the cost of future capital expenditure to ensure water supply. The parameters being used by the government draw upon those being used elsewhere in Australia and are based around one year in 20 in temporary water restrictions. The use of this parameter enables the government to gauge supply and supply augmentation proposals against climate change scenarios.
In using this parameter as a guide, the government’s position is that permanent water conservation measures and other demand management measures and programs must be maintained. The ACT’s permanent water conservation measures have seen our temporary water restriction standards lifted to new heights. For example, our permanent water conservation measures are at the same level as the old level 2 temporary water restrictions, and the new restrictions have subsequently been made significantly more stringent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .