❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses water restrictions and groundwater abstraction, questioning the timing of decisions and approvals related to water supply management during a drought. The Minister's responses provide clarification on timelines, approvals, and water usage strategies.
AnsweredQoN 943Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WATER RESTRICTIONS, GROUND WATER ABSTRACTION 943. Hon N.F. MOORE to the Minister for Government Enterprises: (1) In a ministerial statement in July on the issue of water supplies the minister said that restrictions were not a consideration at that stage. When were water restrictions first raised with the minister? (2) When was the minister first made aware of the option of increasing ground water supplies in response to the drought conditions? (3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
WATER RESTRICTIONS, GROUND WATER ABSTRACTION
(1) In a ministerial statement in July on the issue of water supplies the minister said that restrictions were not a consideration at that stage. When were water restrictions first raised with the minister? (2) When was the minister first made aware of the option of increasing ground water supplies in response to the drought conditions? (3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(2) When was the minister first made aware of the option of increasing ground water supplies in response to the drought conditions? (3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
WATER RESTRICTIONS, GROUND WATER ABSTRACTION
(1) In a ministerial statement in July on the issue of water supplies the minister said that restrictions were not a consideration at that stage. When were water restrictions first raised with the minister? (2) When was the minister first made aware of the option of increasing ground water supplies in response to the drought conditions? (3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(2) When was the minister first made aware of the option of increasing ground water supplies in response to the drought conditions? (3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(3) The minister’s July statement spoke of the growing concern over recent weeks about the precarious state of water levels in dams. Since the drought and its impact on water supplies was obvious as early as June, why did the Water Corporation wait until October to seek an increase in ground water supplies? (4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(4) Has the minister raised the failure of the Water and Rivers Commission to approve the Water Corporation’s October application for an extra 25 gigalitres with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and, if not, why not? (5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(5) How many extra days of watering per week could households enjoy if the extra 25 gigalitres had been approved? (6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(6) What is the current water saving achieved as a result of the reduced water consumption since the introduction of sprinkler bans? (7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(7) In his July statement the minister suggested that the massive investment undertaken by the Water Corporation under the coalition Government is being tested by “the whim of nature”. Given the fact that the Water Corporation has been denied approval to make use of that investment, would it not be more accurate to say that the Water Corporation’s investment is being undermined by the decisions of other government agencies? (8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(8) On 15 November the minister made another statement on the water issue. In that statement the minister mentioned that the Water Corporation was bringing forward plans for the Yarragadee ground water development. What is the point of further investment at this time since the Water Corporation is not allowed to make use of its current capacity, even in the lowest rainfall year since 1915? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(1) In my statement to the House on 31 July 2001 I stated - The need for restrictions is constantly under review and a final decision will be made when the runoff situation in the major catchments becomes clear. (2) 10 August 2001. (3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(3) The Water Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission have had ongoing discussions on the matter since 23 July 2001. There was a need to assess the impact of late winter and spring inflows before formal applications for additional abstraction were considered. (4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(4) No. The 25 gigalitres has been approved as part of the Water Corporation’s ground water abstraction strategy for this summer. (5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(5) Not applicable. The 25 gigalitres is being used to support the current level of restrictions. (6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(6) 15 gigalitres. (7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(7) No. (8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
(8) The existing Yarragadee wells are being fully utilised. The additional wells detailed in my statement on 15 November 2001 would be required to access additional supplies from this aquifer if the drought continues.
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.