Page 1635 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
contributions to the debate, this bill supersedes the current Water Resources Act 1998. It implements a new approach for water allocation, brings our legislative framework into line with our national commitments in regard to water resources and introduces a range of improvements in the administration of those resources.
I foreshadowed the need for a new approach to water allocation when I presented an amendment to the Water Resources Act in 2005 to commence a moratorium on granting further water allocations. I pointed out then that the current act requires the applications to be processed on a first come, first served basis with minimal consideration of the proposed use of the water. If all the water available for abstraction has been accessed, then new applicants are likely to be refused. This holds true even if the new application is for a beneficial community purpose such as irrigation of public areas or publicly accessible school ovals. A more equitable system is needed that would consider what the water is to be used for.
The moratorium currently in place expires at the end of August 2007, and it is intended to have the new approach in place by that date. When developing this new approach, the views of the community were sought. Understandably, there was a considerable diversity of views, ranging principally between those who already had access to water resources and wished to protect them and others who were seeking a water entitlement or were more conscious of protecting public assets.
Nevertheless, there were some points of consensus. People generally agreed that different water uses should be accorded different priorities and that the use of water for public projects was a high priority. There was also a common view that the use of surface water or groundwater for residential irrigation should be accorded a low priority, as these users have alternatives to the use of mains water. While the bill covers the taking of all surface water and groundwater under the control of the territory, the taking of water for urban water supply will not be materially affected. The bill makes it clear that water from the water supply catchments can be used only for the urban water supply.
For all other water, this bill implements a water allocation scheme based on three priorities for water use. The highest priority is assigned to water for stock and domestic use on properties where there is no access to the urban water supply. This priority reflects a longstanding situation: there are rural properties whose basic existence as a rural property is dependent on access to water to support stock and domestic needs.
The second-level priority is accorded to commercial and public uses consistent with the territory plan. These uses could be a nursery business, an orchard, a golf course or, in the public realm, irrigation of school grounds or parkland.
The lowest priority is accorded to urban residential use. What this final priority means is that those people who are currently licensed to use water for urban residential irrigation will be able to continue to do so, but only to the extent of efficient use. No new or expanded use water for urban residential use will be licensed. In particular, this will mean that no further groundwater use on urban residential properties will be permitted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .