Hon Dee Margetts questions the Water and Rivers Commission's ability to intervene in a water supply system application near Chittering, citing potential environmental damage to local waterways. The Commission initially lacked jurisdiction but later intervened after assessing new information, directing the bore owner to decommission part of the bore.

AnsweredQoN 917Legislative Council
Asked
24 June 2003
Portfolio
the Environment and Heritage

QuestionView source ↗

With regard to Budget Estimates 2003-04 one of the Water and Rivers Commission’s major achievements for 2002-03 (under Output 6: Water Resource Information, Protection Plans and Works) was to continue assisting ‘the community in improving rivers and estuaries through preparation of river action plans, catchment management plans and regional strategies, development and provision of technical advice for waterways restoration and support the community in understanding and monitoring rivers and estuaries’ (p641, Budget Paper No. 2).
An application for Planning Consent was presented to Chittering Council for ‘Water Supply System’ (which would involve ‘a bore and pipeline within a portion of the road reserve of Chittering Road’) in late 2002. Hundreds of local residents have expressed concern about the environmental damage that could be caused to the aquifer in the area, and the subsequent serious degradation to Marbling Brook, the Brockman, Avon and Swan Rivers, should this application be approved.
A local action group has contacted the Water and Rivers Commission regarding this matter, but were told that the Commission can only act after the pumping begins and there is evidence of environmental damage -
(1) Can the Commission confirm that they have no ability to intervene in this application process?
(2) If yes to (1), what discretionary powers does the Commission have to prevent a water supply system from being approved if there is a great potential it will cause enormous environmental damage?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
8 August 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
45 days
(1) Initially that was correct, because the proposal discussed with the Commission was to construct an exploration bore into the shallow groundwater system (superficial aquifer) at a site which is outside the proclaimed area of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. (2) The Commission has recently undertaken an extensive assessment of all available information including a hydrogeological report supplied by the proponent and another from a nearby property owner. Based on the information presented, it was determined by the Commission that the new bore would be drawing a quantity of water from a multi aquifer system that was not sustainable and had potential to have unacceptable impacts on both local users and the environment. As a consequence of these findings, the Commission has issued a formal direction (under the Rights in Irrigation Act 1914 ) to the owners of the bore which was constructed into the artesian aquifer at the head of Marbling Brook to decommission or partially seal the shallow aquifer as per industry standards.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more