Page 3552 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
local catchments. It will involve the purchase of around 20 gigalitres of general water security entitlements and the conversion of these entitlements to 10 gigalitres of high security water entitlements.
The government supports Actew’s purchase of water rights and their conversion to high security allocations. Since 2006 the New South Wales government has made available at least 90 per cent of high security water rights to licence holders. Importantly, the Tantangara transfer is relatively low cost as an option to secure the ACT’s future water supply, one that will increase our water diversity and security, as I said, because it is independent of rainfall and local catchments. The release of water to the upper Murrumbidgee from Tantangara will have no adverse effect on the water supply to Cooma or to other settlements. The water Actew will source from Tantangara is water that is currently earmarked for delivery to downstream irrigators—not for town water supply.
The government has given its support to Actew proceeding with the Tantangara options and, if all goes well, it is anticipated it could be operational by 2011. So there is no doubt that this option is a positive step for environmental flows downstream. The Tantangara option also makes sense economically and environmentally and it increases the water security for the ACT, using a sensible risk management approach.
I turn now to the other major project being proposed currently by Actew, and that is the enlarged Cotter Dam. This project involves building an enlarged dam wall downstream of the existing one to increase the dam’s capacity from the current four gigalitres to around 78 gigalitres, almost 20 times its current size. As members would be aware, Actew has commenced the planning approval stages for the enlarged dam, including the lodgement of the project’s environmental impact statement with the Planning and Land Authority. Just to update members, on 18 June I decided to take no further action in relation to that EIS. I think at this point it is important to remind members that the EIS is not in itself an approval process but an investigation of the potentially significant impacts and mitigation options for the proposal.
The EIS having been completed then allowed Actew, as the proponent, to lodge a development application in the impact track. The DA was lodged and a draft public environment report was provided to the commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Members would be aware that during last week’s sittings I provided a statement and a range of information, perhaps the most detailed amount of information on this project ever provided to the Assembly. Members may have also seen the print advertisements for the project and may have even participated in the drop-in sessions that were held by Actew during July on what is the most significant infrastructure project in the territory since the construction of new Parliament House.
Actew is now awaiting the outcomes of applications. The government is giving serious consideration to the significance of this project. When Minister Corbell delivered the ministerial statement on water security in March he noted the importance of these projects, so I am pleased this morning to be able to provide a quick update on behalf of the government. The effective and efficient management of our water resources is one of the most important tasks that face a government, and I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .