DEVELOPMENT (WATER HARVESTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 174.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (00:01): I indicate that the government will be opposing this bill. It seeks to introduce new section 51A into the Development Act 1993, which would require a relevant authority to ensure that a designated development includes arrangements to deal with stormwater harvesting. A designated development is a division of land into more than 20 allotments for residential development or building construction on commercial industrial land greater than 1,000 square metres in area.

While the aim of the bill is admirable, in that it seeks to ensure that new larger developments are more self-reliant in relation to water provision, the prescription of these requirements in the Development Act could place an inflexible and onerous regime on development in this state. It does not provide enough flexibility for those developments that could meet their needs in other ways, or where it is not necessary or desirable for such provisions to be met. The only way out is for the granting of an exemption with the power of veto held by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee.

This has the potential to significantly delay larger developments, particularly developments of large greenfield residential sites and, subsequently, increase the cost of housing in those developments. It is a direction contrary to the government's planning reforms and red tape reduction strategy. The bill does not assist in achieving affordable housing in South Australia.

The government is proposing to address water sustainability and development in a number of different ways, including the strengthening of water-sensitive urban design policies and a review of sustainability measures and built development using the building code, a direct recommendation of the Planning and Development Review Steering Committee.

I also note that some local government entities—such as the City of Salisbury—are pursuing their own initiatives relating to stormwater harvesting in partnership with developers and industry. This work, I must say, is to be commended and encouraged. So, while we believe that it has merits and that the commitment by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is quite genuine, we do not believe that the bill put forward is one that we can support.

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.