Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Lower Lakes Water Cycling Program Lower Lakes Water Cycling Program The Hon. J.S. LEE Legislative Council Lower Lakes Water Cycling Program The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Water and the River Murray a question about the lakes water cycling program. Leave granted. The Hon. J.S. LEE Legislative Council The Hon. J.S. LEE: In minister Hunter's media release on 3 September, he claimed that the year-long scoping study which investigated reducing the salinity of Lake Albert has found that raising and lowering the lake levels is the best management option. Last week, during Senate estimates, it was reported that the salinity level in the lake is at 2,300 EC, which is above the historic average of 1,500 EC, and completely unusable. However, the state government has stated that they will require additional environmental water to undertake the program. Over the past week, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has advised the state government that no more water will be allocated to address these environmental challenges. This was also supported by the federal government, which announced that the Murray-Darling Basin will not be allocated any more water for environmental purposes. My questions to the minister are: 1.	With the federal government and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder not allocating extra water, has the state government undertaken any further investigations regarding alternative measures? 2.	What consultations has the minister had with stakeholders and the federal government to ensure that the best solution is provided to the Lower Lakes? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:05): What an excellent question from the honourable member. She never fails. She actually could show some of the frontbenchers opposite how they can improve their question time effort. An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: She does. She does her own work and she is not shy of doing a bit of work and I commend her for that. The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: That's why you gave her a one sentence answer last week. The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It was concise. The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: That's what you did; you're in Hansard. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister has the floor. The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you Mr President. There is some virtue in having a concise answer sometimes when we can give it. This is complicated topic, though, so I won't be quite so concise. I need to explain to the council some of the issues that are involved. It is worth noting that the honourable member says that the EC limits were 2,300, and I should add, and dropping, compared to historical levels of EC at 1,500, and so the improvements are happening but they will take some time. I have said before in this place that the Lake Albert Scoping Study was tasked to look at some potential solutions to Lake Albert's salinity levels. It has been released. The study was carried out after extensive community engagement and involved the investigation of up to five options. Of these five options the study had recommended—and I have told this place before about that—the preferred practice of lake cycling. Despite all of the scientific and environmental modelling that went into this work, as well as the extensive community engagement and consultation that was undertaken, some members of this chamber and some members of federal parliament wish to ignore those scientific facts that were taken into account in that presentation. For the benefit of members here who may be confused by some of these issues, let me take them through the processes that we undertook for this study. The effective long-term management of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth remains a priority for the government, as it does for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and I will come to that issue in a moment, but we had a very good result in Brisbane a little while ago in terms of getting some funding for the Murray Mouth. Whilst the salinity levels are declining, as I said, in Lake Albert, and they are above the historic average, I am advised that as of 5 September 2014, the salinity in the lake was approximately 2,270 EC. It is worth remembering also that at the height of the drought we were facing salinity levels of about 20,000 EC. In November 2012, funding up to about $740,000 was approved for a study for the long-term management of water quality issues in Lake Albert and the Narrows at Narrung. As of 30 June, we have spent about $650,000 of that on the study. This funding came from the Coorong and Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Recovery Project. The Lake Albert study commenced in January of 2013 with the aim of identifying potential management actions, as I have outlined. So they considered the base case which was to do nothing, the dredging of the Narrows, removal and modification of the causeway, a permanent water regulating structure in the Narrows, a Coorong connector or lake cycling. These considerations included those suggested by the Meningie and Narrung Lakes Irrigators Association in its five-point plan for the management of Lake Albert. The project included a literature review, community requirement study, legislative review, qualitative engineering investigation, modelling studies, on-ground investigations, engineering feasibility and a cost-benefit analysis. The Hon. Ms Lensink and I have had debates in this place before about cost-benefit analysis and she now understands the depth of the problem with a Coorong connector approach. The options paper included extensive consultation, as I said, including the development of a community requirement study undertaken by an independent market research company to have a look at the community opinion around these issues on potential management options. Cultural considerations of the proposed management actions were also taken into account. A number of discussion forums were held with the Ngarrindjeri and the formation of a position paper. In recommending lake cycling as the most feasible option for managing Lake Albert's salinity, the options paper does not support a Coorong connector, as I advised the chamber previously, due to the cost and the time frame required to deliver benefits, when compared to the lake cycling option. Other engineering solutions were also discounted due to these options being either cost prohibitive or not technically feasible. The local and interstate irrigation community has often raised the construction of a Coorong connector as a preferred option and I can understand why they might see it that way but, at the end of the day, it is going to cost about $19 million to put this in place. It would take a considerable amount of time in terms of engineering feasibility studies and community consultations and an environmental impact statement, and I am advised that by the time that it is all completed, lake cycling would have done the job.