Page 1636 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Groundwater in the ACT is a small but valuable resource. This government considers that its use should be directed to where it can make the greatest contribution to meeting think water, act water targets for reducing our mains water use. Urban residential properties have practicable alternatives to reduce their demand on mains water through such measures as water efficiency, rainwater use, and grey water reuse, but such measures would often be insufficient for public and commercial uses where a greater quantity of water is required. Reserving groundwater use in the urban area for public and commercial purposes will, in the longer term, lead to a greater reduction in the demand on mains water, the more widespread adoption of water-sensitive urban design measures in the existing urban area and greater public benefits.
In addition to the new approach to water allocation, the bill makes changes to ensure that our water resources legislation is consistent with our commitments under the intergovernmental agreement on the national water initiative. Two significant changes have been needed. The first is to explicitly allocate water as a share of the sustainable yield of the catchment rather than specifying a particular volume. This is a very important change, as it facilitates sustainable and transparent management of our water resources in the face of climate change.
As an example, we currently allocate the sustainable yield of a catchment—say, 100 megalitres all up—in absolute volumes. Person A gets 20 megalitres, person B gets 15 megalitres and so on. Should the climate change, the sustainable yield of the catchment may be reduced and we could find that we had over-allocated in this particular catchment. Conversely, if each person gets a percentage share of the yield, not a volume, the catchment is not over-allocated if the climate changes and the yield reduces.
Secondly, we need more specific controls on how trading is managed. With appropriate controls, trading is a useful tool to enable water use to move to higher-benefit uses. In the future, it is anticipated that an active market will provide the mechanism whereby new users can acquire a water access entitlement and other users dispose of a water entitlement they no longer need. In order to encourage the development of the market, all new users will be required to purchase trading rights. Existing users will also be required to purchase trading rights if they wish to amend or transfer their water access entitlement. However, how water can be traded will be clearly specified to avoid unintended consequences.
There are also necessary changes to the current act arising from two recent challenges to decisions made under the act which proceeded to the Court of Appeal. The court identified shortcomings in the act in the way decisions on allocations and licences were linked to the sustainable yield of the subcatchment. These have been remedied. Perhaps the most notable implication arising from the Court of Appeal decisions is the ability for the Legislative Assembly to vest all groundwater of the territory, except that controlled by the commonwealth, in the territory, and thus manage it in the same manner as surface water. Accordingly, the bill provides for all groundwater to now be covered by the same allocation arrangements as for surface water. The revised arrangements that can now be implemented will improve the management of water resources and remove a complicating and inequitable anomaly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .