Page 3133 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Indeed, Actew’s 2005 future water options report reminded us that a dam at Tennent had been on the list of future water options at least since the 1960s and that provision for the reservoir had been included in the national capital plan in 1990. The report went on to say that the think water, act water strategy now requires that the Tennent option be seriously explored and judged against other selected options.
So the bottom line is that Tennent has been considered a serious option for decades. The Liberals recognised that and promised to deliver on that long-held knowledge but a Chief Minister in denial has thereby denied the people of the ACT the water security they deserve. It will end up costing Canberrans more than twice what it could have, plus put Canberra through years of water restrictions, and has created considerable distress for many Canberrans who were once proud of their flourishing gardens and proud of their beautiful garden city.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (1.13 am): I want to raise one issue with members tonight, given that Mrs Dunne has dealt with much of what needed to be said. I simply want to mention the proposed pipeline from the Murrumbidgee to Googong Dam, particularly concerns in the community about this pipeline and particularly the impact of the 100 megalitres being poured into Burra Creek. I think all members should watch this issue with a great deal of interest.
There was a very interesting interview on Triple 6 the other day with Peter Duffy, who is a member of the land care group at Burra and who spoke about that pipeline. He raised concerns about what a 100-megalitre flow in the creek itself would do. He talked about how he had visions of concrete drains being formed. I guess he raised a sense that initially people thought Actew were not taking their concerns seriously, that they are now finding them, and he congratulated Actew on being more sensible in the way that they are treating this issue. A number of people have raised it with me. They do not see how suddenly pumping, during the pumping stage, a 100-megalitre flow into a creek cannot have anything but some effect upon the creek and the way it exists at the moment.
Hopefully, minister or the two shareholders, through the shareholders back to Actew, we do get this right. The ability to transfer that water out of the Murrumbidgee to Googong is certainly worthy of the project going ahead but not at the expense of that community that live on that part of the transition course, the transfer course, that is currently a naturally flowing creek. So I am sure we will all keep an eye on that project.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (1.14 am): Like Mrs Dunne, I would like to look at some of the water security projects being discussed by Actew. I guess I have a different perspective on it. Mrs Dunne identified some of the increased costs of the enlarged Cotter Dam and the increases there of 50 to 70 per cent. She also referred to the Googong pipeline which started out at $96.5 million but is now looking at a cost of up to $125 million.
Obviously, these numbers are of great concern when you consider cost changes. But it was interesting in the estimates process when we asked Mr Sullivan about some of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .