Parliamentary Questions

I refer to the Government’s election commitment not to allow the Fitzroy River or its tributaries to be dammed, and the document “Kimberley Cropping: Water Resource Plan” that states from January 2016 the proponent for the proposed Gogo Station irrigated agriculture project states that two dams will be created on Gogo Station capable of holding 40.35 gigalitres (gl) and 7.2gl each, and the “the dams will be fed utilizing flows from the Margaret River.”. It is noted in a report by Dr Ryan Vogwill on this proposal, the “Scale and Impact of the Gogo Station Irrigated Agriculture Proposal”, that the capacity of these dams is more water than can be stored in the Stirling Dam, and close to the amount of water that can be stored in the Wungong Dam in Western Australia’s southwest. It is also noted that the water storage in the proposed Gogo dam would be over three times the total surface water allocation of 14.6Gl for the Daly River in the Northern Territory. It is also noted that the Oxford Dictionary defines a dam as, “A barrier constructed to hold back water and raise its level, forming a reservoir used to generate electricity or as a water supply.”. The proposed Gogo dams would be constructed to hold back floodwaters from the Margaret River that would otherwise flow directly into the Fitzroy River, for the purposes of creating a reservoir for use as a water supply. I ask:

(a) given the above and in context of the Government’s election commitment, is the proposed dam on Gogo Station a dam; and

(b) if it is not a dam, please explain why?