|
The Hon.
R.L. BROKENSHIRE (00:04): I thank the honourable member for his contribution.
I will at least acknowledge that the government is saying that the bills have
merit, but I would like to see this bill passed so that we can get on with
productivity when it comes to water harvesting.
This is
the second of a three-bill package and, with due respect to the other two
bills, this one would actually have a more immediate effect if passed. I
just want to qualify a point that has been raised (if I heard it correctly)
in the debate in relation to designated development. Designated development
means the division of land under this act into more than 20 allotments for
the purposes of residential development. We have had a look at it and we have
also had legal advice about it. We do not expect very small subdivisions to
bear the cost of infrastructure for water harvesting. However, when
developments exceed 20 allotments the economies of scale are there.
As I have
said, it is very difficult to retrofit and it costs more money, so the
cheapest investment time for infrastructure is when it involves greenfield
sites. If we do not start with greenfield sites, where are we
ever really going to start? Of course, with commercial and industrial
properties it is where the site exceeds 1,000 metres, so we are not talking
about the local shop on the corner: we are talking about more significant
commercial and industrial developments.
We had a
debate in here on the handing over of powers to the commonwealth for the
River Murray and it was brought up (and now appears in Hansard) that
critical human needs did include industry in Adelaide which had had no water
restrictions whatsoever placed upon it and could use whatever water was
wanted. New commercial and industrial developments just tap into the mains
water. There are no requirements to build tanks for holding catchment, etc.
In America in
1997 I saw what was being done with recycled water. There, they capture water
from freeways; they are focused, and they do not have the problems we have
with climate change. I believe that this bill is crucial because it is the
only way we can go forward into stormwater harvesting. It is too costly and
impractical to retrofit wetlands, etc., which are required for existing
developments in many cases.
Acquifer storage and
recovery is not new technology. The first trials of acquifer
storage and recovery were done in the 1950s, when aquifers were recharged
with urban run-off to supplement existing groundwater reserves to be accessed
in times of drought. That was 58 years ago, when people were getting ready
for times of drought. Look at what we face now, but nothing much has
happened. The potential for stormwater harvesting in Adelaide
was not finally recognised until 1989, when a set of statistics revealed that
the amount of stormwater run-off from metropolitan Adelaide was greater than the city's total
mains water use. We have an opportunity here to overcome a major problem.
In 1991
the new Brompton stormwater management trial was the first example of urban
catchment and acquifer storage and recovery for
residential development. That project consisted of 15 townhouses surrounding
a reserve in Brompton. All roof run-off was
transferred into a gravel-filled trench below ground level which then entered
the quaternary acquifer via a bore hole. The water
was then recovered and used for irrigation purposes. That was with only 15
townhouses; we are saying it has to be 20 or more. The trials were done and
proven.
The
underlying acquifer system is a key characteristic
of Adelaide's
stormwater storage potential; that is one of the great things. The Hon. Mr
Ridgway asks: what happens if you cannot take acquifer
storage and recovery? We have a provision within the act whereby, if you
cannot do an ASR in a specific subdivision, you put in dual reticulation and
other initiatives to bring pipes through from other areas to alleviate the
stresses with water. Obviously, it is subject to a geologist's report as to
whether it can be done. I can tell you from my own knowledge that most of the
Adelaide acquifer is fantastic when it comes to the geology for acquifer storage and recovery, including right through
the McLaren Vale area.
The
Adelaide Plains area is underlaid by a series of
quaternary and tertiary age aquifers. The upper tertiary aquifers are shallow
and individually limited in extent and saline. The quaternary system has
greater storage potential due to lower salinities, rapid and extensive
transfer of pressure and a larger storage area.
Quite
simply, the advice that I have is that the hydrology is there, the will and
capacity of local government is there and the water savings and economics are
there. This bill is where the rubber will hit the road on saving water in Adelaide, and it adds up to water for the environment,
including the Lower
Lakes and water for our
irrigators, who are our food producers.
Just
consider for a minute, the argument I made on the first bill. I am talking
about the potential to double the government's planned 80-odd gigalitres to over 160. That is 80 gigalitres
saving from where? The River Murray.
We have been debating the Lower
Lakes in the public
arena and in here, and they need a 30 gigalitre
drink before Christmas, as Family First, the Greens and other colleagues on
the crossbenches who went to the rally have been saying.
With my
proposals here, we will save not only 30 gigalitres
for the Lower Lakes
but also 50 gigalitres for environmental
projects or for food producers to get a decent allocation for the survival of
permanent plantings or, better still, a crop to provide income for their
families, and jobs and food for South
Australia.
In
closing, I refer honourable members to my earlier remarks on these bills, and
I am very happy, before the committee stage, to sit down with honourable
members to go through the technicalities and encourage any amendments that
they may like to propose.
Bill read
a second time.
|
%20amendement%20bill_files/image002.jpg)
%20amendement%20bill_files/image004.jpg)