Page 1627 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
an abundant alternative to river water, although in many cases groundwater can boost river flows.
What I am not so sure about is how much is understood about the groundwater in the ACT. How does pumping out groundwater in one place affect the closest surface water? How long does it take until these effects are noticeable? I understand that it can take one to five years for some of the impacts of groundwater extraction to be observable. Without access to the technical data, it is hard to assess whether there has ever been sufficient research into determining the stream-aquifer connectivity of the various groundwater aquifers in the ACT. For any real data to be calculated, records of water levels, flow and quality parameters need to be taken on a regular basis.
One issue of interest I have come across pertaining to groundwater in inner south Canberra, at the base of Red Hill, is that the hydrogeology lends itself to seepage because the potentiometric surface at one location is consistently three metres above ground level. The roads thus require constant maintenance and frequent rebuilding. The only effective remedial measure has been the regular pumping of groundwater from bores in the underlying aquifer. Here, I have been told by a hydrogeologist who used to advise the NCDC, it is justifiable to use a certain percentage of groundwater as it can, in a normal year, be replenished. Thus, it seems that planning decisions of the past ensure that we need to have a minimum for groundwater extraction in some areas as well as a maximum.
I am glad to see the provision in this bill allowing for drawback of licences in case further needs are found to be of higher priority down the track. I believe that government needs to retain the right to reduce entitlements to ensure sustainable water levels and in case extraction is found to be impacting more on surface water levels than was previously thought.
Of grave concern to me, especially given the rising challenges of water management in the ACT and surrounds, is the general lack of 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. Of course, in the ACT we have far fewer groundwater experts, with only two or three giving advice to our environment department. These continuing water shortages make for a time in Australia’s history when there should be an increase in hydrology expertise, not a decrease.
In conclusion, I would like to see a system in place whereby groundwater and surface water allocations are considered jointly as one resource and we move even more into focusing on end use, rather than being tied down by our past. I think that the key to this legislation is ensuring that water-sensitive urban design is implemented in public parks and places as well as this advice being offered profusely to home gardeners and commercial users, as well as the efficient use protocol being applied and monitored.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (7.51): Mr Stefaniak has dealt with the broad issues involved in this bill and has indicated that the opposition will be supporting it. There is just one area that I want to make reference to. It was touched on by Dr Foskey. When I was looking at this bill, the changes in relation to groundwater took me back to earlier discussions we had had on this subject. The minister, in his covering
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .