Page 4628 - Week 12 - Thursday, 15 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is the government’s view that the establishment of a committee inquiry is not warranted at this time. It is not needed because the Assembly has been kept informed of the development and implementation of the ACT’s major water security projects since initial research and investigation commenced in 2004. Actew has continually engaged and informed the broader community as well on its research and development of the range of options to address the planning and management of the ACT’s water resources. If there is a need for the Assembly to seek further information and detail on these developments, the government and Actew are committed to assisting members to the greatest degree possible. But the establishment of an inquiry is a step too far, particularly at a time when greater information and clarification and further briefings from Actew and their project partners may resolve members’ concerns and questions.
Let me give some important background on this project and how it has developed. Clearly, the ACT and the region have experienced a prolonged drought since 2002. The government and Actew have closely monitored the situation and over time have implemented a range of studies and measures to provide a measured and appropriate response to the prolonged drought. As part of the government’s water strategy “think water, act water”, released in April 2004, Actew was required to investigate future water options. The future water options process involved a review of the need and required timing for augmentation of the ACT’s water supply.
This was followed by a detailed assessment of the options identified under the “think water, act water” strategy for provision of a long-term reliable source of water for the region. The future water options reports of 2004 and 2005 assessed a total of 25 variations and recommended the options of an enlarged Cotter Dam and the implementation of the option to pump water from the Murrumbidgee River near Angle Crossing to Googong Dam with technical analysis to occur on these options. These options and recommendations were well thought through and well understood.
Turning to post-bushfire water security projects, concurrent to the future water options investigations for long-term water security, work was also undertaken to implement works aimed at securing water supply in the short term, primarily in response to the 2003 bushfires and droughts. Contrary to the assertions made by the Liberal Party, there has been an ongoing body of work on the ground to improve water security since the fires. This has seen the construction of the Mount Stromlo water treatment plant to adequately treat water harvested in the Cotter catchment following the fires. This allowed the reintroduction of the Cotter reservoir into service for supply. The Cotter pumping station has been completely upgraded to transfer flows directly to the Mount Stromlo water treatment plant.
Further, the government has put in place measures for the extraction of water from the Murrumbidgee River, which led to an arrangement comprising extraction from downstream of Cotter reservoir and pumping, via the Cotter pumping station, to the Mount Stromlo water treatment plant, where UV treatment was added to the treatment process to facilitate the removal of pathogens. The fourth of these upgrades was the optimisation of the use of current water. This transferred water from the Cotter catchment to the Googong reservoir. This water that was previously spilled from Bendora reservoir has been put in place to ensure that we use our existing water resources as wisely as possible.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .