Page 5172 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have raised with the authority the fact that the ACT’s water use represents just over seven per cent of water raised in the ACT, or 15 per cent after providing for environmental flows. This is a very important point to make. The territory has been a good water citizen and has been a prudent user of the water resources under its direct control. We have not over-allocated—in fact, quite the reverse. We have been extremely conservative in our water use.
Most importantly, I have raised with the authority and with the relevant commonwealth minister the fact that the basin plan guide makes no provision for ACT population growth, even where that growth can be reasonably expected; in fact, even where we can expect that growth to be expanded because of population shift from rural areas in the basin to the ACT as a result of changes in water allocations in the basin.
The government also has concerns over the accuracy of estimates made for the ACT’s water use. The guide states that the ACT uses some 12 gigalitres per annum in forestry and farming diversions against the territory’s own estimates, as agreed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s independent audit group, of being no more than five gigalitres. This is a real concern. The Murray-Darling Basin guide suggests that some 12 gigalitres of water per annum is used in forestry and farming activities in the territory when their own independent audit group finds that that is only five gigalitres at most. This needs to be addressed and it has not been to date.
Finally, there are a couple of other issues that have not been property taken account of by the MDBA. Firstly, there has been no recognition of additional water, estimated to be around 13 gigalitres per annum, that is returned to the basin because of Canberra’s built form. Simply put, because of the many hard surfaces that exist in the built-up area of Canberra, more run-off from storm and rain events is returned to the basin than would otherwise be returned if it was simply absorbed into the soil. But there is no recognition of this in the basin guide.
Finally, and most critically, the territory is concerned that there is no provision for water for critical human needs in the territory. The MDBA make assumptions that, across the basin, 340 litres per day is required for critical human needs. Such a threshold would see the ACT have a sustainable diversion limit of 42 gigalitres per year. Yet the basin plan is only proposing 22 to 28 gigalitres per annum. So even according to the authority’s own formula, their own estimate, on what the average use per day is for people living in the basin for critical human needs—that is, drinking water, bathing, food preparation and so on—they are proposing a sustainable diversion limit less than what they assume should be the average per person use. This needs to be addressed.
The proposal for the ACT to have extraction reductions of 26 to 34 per cent of current diversion limits, or rising to 34 to 45 per cent if taken from watercourse diversions, raises real concerns for the territory. In 2008, the Centre for International Economics estimated that stage 3 temporary water restrictions cost the ACT $71.8 million to $121.6 million per annum, being the median and upper-bound estimates. Actew used the upper-bound estimates in all of its analysis to assist the benefit-cost implications
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video