What Others Say
ASWRS Steering Committee Reports
| Meeting | Report Name | Date |
| 1 | Beneficial Uses (pdf 148Kb) | 3rd November 2005 |
| 2 | Allowable Yield and Water Allocation (pdf 193Kb) | 10th November 2005 |
| 3 | Getting it together – Beneficial Uses, Water Allocation & Trading (pdf 166Kb) | 17th November 2005 |
| 4 | Water Allocation (pdf 112Kb) | 24th November 2005 |
| 5 | Water Advisory Committee & Work Program (pdf 163Kb) | 1st December 2005 |
| 6 | Assessing Draft Community Consultation Report (pdf 91Kb) | 15 December 2005 |
Community Forum Minutes
Community Forum 2: “Water Use and Sustainability”
Saturday 29 October 2005, 1.30pm – 3.30 pm, Witchetty’s (Araluen Centre)
Given a chance to consider the information presented the previous week, this forum provided an important opportunity for community members to express their ideas and opinions about how we should plan water use in Alice Springs.
- Forum Minutes (pdf 199Kb)
Community Forum 1: “Myths, Facts & Future of Alice Springs”
Saturday 22 October 2005, 1.30pm – 3.30pm, Witchetty’s (Araluen Centre).
This forum was open to all members of the community and focused on the future of Alice Springs and its water supply. The forum addressed the following questions:
Where does our water come from? How much water have we got? How long will it last? How is future water use being planned and regulated? How can I have a say about future water use?
- Forum Minutes (pdf 123Kb)
General Viewpoints
AM ABC Radio
Broadcast: 31 October 2005 – 9.13am
Compere, Kate Sieper interviews a range of public speakers regarding the community consultation, sustainability and water allocation (4 interviewees).
- Transcript (pdf 62Kb)
AM ABC Radio
Broadcast: 24 October 2005 – 9.14am
Compere, Kate Sieper interviews a range of public speakers (5 interviewees) and John Childs, Regional Manager, Natural Resource, Policy and Planning.
- Transcript (pdf 54Kb)
ABC Stateline TV
Broadcast: 21 October 2005
Reporter, Melinda James interviews John Brisbin from the Arid Lands Environment Centre about Alice Springs water and the Water Resource Strategy.
Beneficial Uses
Glenn Marshall - Submission Form Response
2 November 2005
As mentioned at Water Forum, I believe horticultural use that results in mono-crops being 100% exported from Alice Springs should be considered 'Industrial use' as they have no food benefit for the town. I therefore believe industrial horticulture should only be able to access TDS water than is of no use to the Public Water Supply.
Conversely, if a poly-culture horticultural operation is proposed that delivers food directly to people of Alice Springs, then this should be considered for higher quality water allocation. Modelling of 'ecological footprints' for alice Springs shows import of food is the highest ecological impact of individuals living in our town. For industrial use, I believe it should be included as a 'beneficial use' but with a caveat. anyone wanting to utilise significant quantities of water should have to demonstrate that they are minimising their use of water by using latest technologies, and that the volume of water used is more than compensated by the projected economic/social benefit for the town. This assessment should be conducted by a community-based water committee, not in-house by NTG or a Minister.
Sustainability
Glenn Marshall - Submission Form Response
2 November 2005
Obviously the current policy of allowing 80% of the total aquifer wat3er supply to be extracted within 100 years is ridiculous, and government should be ashamed of itself for ever having proposed and adopted such a definition.
There should be an underlying philosophy to use water as wisely as we can in Alice Springs, reflecting our desert location, the non-renewable nature of our resource and the thrust to make Alice Springs a Desert Smart town. As such we should always aim to use as little water as we can, and anyone wanting to use significant new amounts should have to justify themselves through a rigorous public assessment process, perhaps similar to the Development Consent Authroity, but using a specific Community Water Committee. Similarly, existing users should be encouraged and assisted to reduce their water consumption on gardens and other areas. If they are not willing to reduce their use, then they should expect to pay a premium for their high water use (through two-teir tariffs or similar). We should not be scared to demand that high users pay for their 'right' to use non-renewable water in a desert town.
We should cap Public Water supply extractions at current rates (not the current licence volume) so that additional water requirements from population growth etc are sourced from water efficiency initiatives. This is readily and economically achievable. If a new user wants to extract higher volumes than this, they should have to prove that the gain from their activities outweighs the loss of water.
If the town wants to retain <500TDS water quality for the foreseeable future, I believe the aquifer area that allows a net total of 500TDS to be extracted (including <500TDS water and >500TDS water that can be shandied together) to be quaranteened for Public Supply use. It should not be allocated to horticultural or major industrial use.
Regarding your definition of 'sustainable water extraction' it is obvious that any significant extraction is not sustainable. I would like the agreed yield to be described as 'acceptable water mining rates' to reflect this and be more realistic for people in the town who examine the Water Resources Strategy.
It also seems that the town is already close to its extraction limits for <500TDS water (80%+ allocated already??). Presuming NRETA definition of 'accessible' water is over-optimistic (i.e. being able to economically access 100% of water in the Roe Creek borefield area) then we may already be at or above 'sustainable' extraction rates. I would like NRETA to re-examine the economically accessible water volumes to check this query. Can the Water Allocation Plan incorporate mandatory requirements to conduct detailed least-cost assessments for water extraction and use?? If so, it would increase the chances of economically viable water efficiency initiatives being implemented. the current system does not stimulate such actions.
As highlighted by John Brisbin from the Arid Lands Environment Centre, will NRETA seek independent verification of the methodologies and volumes derived by NRETA to underpin the size of the water resource? this would seem critical so Power Water, users and others have confidence in the strength of the numbers.
Any other comments
Glenn Marshall - Submission Form Response
2 November 2005
The biggest flaw in the proposed Water Resources Strategy is the lack of economic assessment for accessible water, other than the 350 metre depth limit (what economic assessment is this based on?). For example, the current proposal assumes that every drop of water higher than 350 metres between the roe Creek borefield and the rocky Hill borefield is extractable at an economically acceptable price. This is clearly false, as it would seemingly take a string of bores along strike to access all water, and this is likely to be very costly (I understand it iwill cost an estimated $50M to set up Rocky Hill itself, without outlier bores).. East of Rocky Hill, the same scenario is likely to be exacerbated. Additionally, energy costs to extract water are likely to keep rising significantly in future years. Has this been factored into NRETA's assessment of accessible yields from the aquifers. Does higher energy costs mean water can only be economically extracted from 300 metres deep, rather than 350 metres?? The model should incorporate the best predictions for physical limits in the aquifer where water can be extracted at acceptable economic prices. This should then dictate the volume of water that is discussed for allocation to various 'beneficial uses'. These limits and economics can be reviewed every five years, the same as NRETA flagged for technological improvements that may allow deeper water or saltier water to be extracted economically in future. Therefore, 'cost of delivery' should be a critical addition to NRETA's definiton of the 'useable water resource'.
In the same vein, NRETA seems to assume that all water east of Rocky Hill is also economically accessible. This too would seem extremely optimistic. Additionally, NRETA has 10 year time frames for water extraction used for Publc Water supply. Presumably we are currently extracting the cheapest water, and extraction costs will rise in future years. Therefore the 10 year planning horzons should incorporate these expected rises in water extraction costs. What extraction cost does the NTG, Power Water, local industries and public believe is acceptable for Alice Springs and how much of this can be passed on to users?? If projected extraction costs exceed acceptable price payments, this has enormous implications for the town. There may be millions of litres of <500TDS water remaining underground, but industries and people may be moving away from the town because they aren't willing to pay for it.
How much longer is the current Rocky Hill extraction license for horticulture valid? It should be decided now whether this licence will be extended, or finished to preserve quality water for public supply. This provides planning certainty for the licensee. It certainly seems inappropriate that the license is automatically renewed because of historical ownership rights.