❓ A parliamentary question addresses procedures for landholders draining saline water and government efforts to streamline the approval process. The minister acknowledges the effectiveness of deep drainage but highlights concerns about the toxic by-product and explores alternative uses for allocated funds.
AnsweredQoN 1351Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SALINE WATER, INTENTION TO DRAIN
(1) Will the minister outline the procedures a landholder is required to follow should he or she wish to install a deep drain that discharges saline water into other water or a watercourse? (2) What steps is the Government and/or the Department of Agriculture undertaking to simplify and to make more expedient the process of obtaining a notice of intention to drain? Hon KIM CHANCE
(1) Will the minister outline the procedures a landholder is required to follow should he or she wish to install a deep drain that discharges saline water into other water or a watercourse? (2) What steps is the Government and/or the Department of Agriculture undertaking to simplify and to make more expedient the process of obtaining a notice of intention to drain? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
(2) What steps is the Government and/or the Department of Agriculture undertaking to simplify and to make more expedient the process of obtaining a notice of intention to drain? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
(1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
(2) What steps is the Government and/or the Department of Agriculture undertaking to simplify and to make more expedient the process of obtaining a notice of intention to drain? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
(1)-(2) Hon Frank Hough has almost answered his own question, because he has referred to the notice of intent to drain. The simple answer is that a farmer intending to carry out such engineering works is required to issue notice of intention to drain to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation. The assessment procedures are then followed, and the nature of those procedures will depend largely on the nature of the drainage proposal in that a relatively minor proposal would be reasonably fast-tracked through the process, whereas a major proposal such as the Beacon River proposal would require a fairly high level of assessment and possibly even referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. This would almost certainly be the case for a project on the scale of the Beacon River Catchment Salinity Management Project. The range is quite broad, and without going through it in great detail - which the question did not require - that is about as far as I can go. As to the steps being taken to simplify the procedure, Hon Frank Hough will be aware that the Government, in its election platform, set aside $4 million specifically to assist with deep drainage and other engineering solutions to salinity. I am reassessing the way in which I think the Government should deal with that money because, as Hon Frank Hough knows very well, much of the engineering database is already available to us; it has been provided by private sector operators. It is an interesting question, and I would certainly appreciate further advice from Hon Frank Hough on this matter. It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
It is very clear to me that deep drainage is a very effective and successful tool in managing salinity. Indeed, it is far more successful and effective than the Government was first led to believe by people qualified in that field. The difficulty with deep drainage is that, while it is successful in reducing salinity and watertable levels in saline affected areas, it produces a highly toxic by-product. It is not simply salt and water. The solution that is draining out of this country can be highly acidic and contaminated by heavy metals. A better way must be found of dealing with the product of those drains. The drains clearly work, but some attention needs to be given to what is done with the product of the drains. When I said I am looking at some possibilities of spending that $4 million in other ways, I was looking in that direction. There is no point in repeating the work that has already been successfully demonstrated by the private sector in the area of drainage. The Government’s role should be to find ways of dealing with that toxic solution. It should be obvious to all members that the answer is not to drain that highly dangerous solution through fresh ground and onto disposal areas which, in many cases, are the last areas left in the wheatbelt with any natural vegetation. Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
Labour Relations Reform Bill 2000, Hon Paddy Embry
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.