Possibly even introduced with fanfare? I agree though, from the moment I realised what they were up to behind that fence I wondered how this could not end in flooded houses. But screw the Inner North, apparently. Enjoy your lagoon and stop complaining about your ruined carpets.

I wonder just how big the flood risk in the inner north actually is – Washed out bridges? Submerged apartments? I doubt it.

If a big storm was predicted, then surely the various wetlands along Sullivans Ck could be emptied prior to the dump and then fill up with the rain, thus mitigating any possible flood damage. Is this not an improvement?

I noted that the Lyneham wetland filled up overnight from being perhaps 1/4 full.

New Yeah said :

I wonder just how big the flood risk in the inner north actually is – Washed out bridges? Submerged apartments? I doubt it.

If a big storm was predicted, then surely the various wetlands along Sullivans Ck could be emptied prior to the dump and then fill up with the rain, thus mitigating any possible flood damage. Is this not an improvement?

I noted that the Lyneham wetland filled up overnight from being perhaps 1/4 full.

1) I have not observed any sluice facility

2) for the greens this is just the start, they want to whole creek to be wetlands where the water moves through much more slowly, that is it can back up.

10 million is a ridiculous spend of tax payers money. I visited the wetlands yesterday and theres not even a bar ? I would want a bar for that money.

Fanfare, rather than ‘fanfair’, please.

I’m interested in your comment that the new system ‘is massively increasing flood risk along the creek’. Do you have some evidence that this is the case? Other than seeing water in the creek for longer (hint: this might not be evidence for your proposition). Perhaps there could have been some reports already produced that look at this issue, which may have been part of the cost of these projects? Harkening back to your quoting of Grog recently, perhaps these are even available to a journalist with a web connection?

I also note the reference to environmental flows. Stormwater harvesting and detention/retention schemes can make a pretty big difference in the quality of the water that ends up being discharged into rivers and creeks to maintain environmental flows. Or to the lake. Turbidity, nutrient loads, suspended solids etc can all be improved by schemes like these. It’s not just a matter of local amenity or local biodiversity.

I could also point to successful, inland, stormwater harvesting schemes that make a positive contribution to local water quality, river quality, recharge aquifers and displace reliance on costly potable water for open space irrigation. But maybe I’ll leave that for you when you feel like doing a bit of research rather than a lazy paste of media releases & a rant I could have got down the pub.

Seems like a great idea to me, but I’m surprised no one has screeched about fencing it so Thuh Childrun can’t drown themselves.

pajs said :

Fanfare, rather than ‘fanfair’, please.

I’m interested in your comment that the new system ‘is massively increasing flood risk along the creek’. Do you have some evidence that this is the case? Other than seeing water in the creek for longer (hint: this might not be evidence for your proposition). Perhaps there could have been some reports already produced that look at this issue, which may have been part of the cost of these projects? Harkening back to your quoting of Grog recently, perhaps these are even available to a journalist with a web connection?

I also note the reference to environmental flows. Stormwater harvesting and detention/retention schemes can make a pretty big difference in the quality of the water that ends up being discharged into rivers and creeks to maintain environmental flows. Or to the lake. Turbidity, nutrient loads, suspended solids etc can all be improved by schemes like these. It’s not just a matter of local amenity or local biodiversity.

I could also point to successful, inland, stormwater harvesting schemes that make a positive contribution to local water quality, river quality, recharge aquifers and displace reliance on costly potable water for open space irrigation. But maybe I’ll leave that for you when you feel like doing a bit of research rather than a lazy paste of media releases & a rant I could have got down the pub.

I think the main problem will be rubbish, sure the reeds will filter it but someone still needs to go and pick it up.

I used to love walking up my street and playing junior footy on Hawdon street oval. $10m would have kept it watered for decades

Different times I guess

Every drop of storm water we conserve in a drought situation is water we have to let out of our potable water storages to maintain environmental flows in the rivers leading out of the ACT.

No it doesn’t. Care to point out where in the environmental flow rules it says this?

Secondly the concrete drain was superb at reducing flood risk by very quickly depositing water into Lake Burley Griffin.

The new system, retaining water in the system for longer is massively increasing flood risk along the creek.

How so? Unless you design them really badly detention basins reduce peak flows. Dickson pond is an off-line pond so by design really can’t add to the problem. Lyneham pond is in-line so could cause local flooding problems in the immediate upstream area. However, the cycle path on the southern side is at least 2m of above the spillway crest and that’s a metric shed-load going over the spillway.

I give it 6 months and it will be filled with shoping trolleys and Mozzies.

According to the published figures in Saturdays CT, dam levels are around the 99.6% level. looking out my window i note that the .4% appears to be falling today.

Can this stormwater really be harvested and used?

The Inlymbo household LOVES this wetland area. The footpath is good, little inlymbo can ride a bike safely around the whole thing (with me in tow). Give it a try, have some fun and be happy.

I confess that we live a short walk away from the new Dickson wetlands and for the first time in 17 years we’re thrilled that there’s somewhere beautiful to take a walk around, with ducks and coots and a cacophony of frogs – great for our kids too, because they now ride their bikes and scooters where we used to struggle to fly kites while trying to avoid stepping in someone’s dog poo.

The foolish thing is that the properties that border the new wetlands have each just been handed a 40 to 50K windfall, which is all very nice for the fortunate homeowners that overlook the new pond, but with a bit of good planning and appropriate rezoning 2 to 3-storey multi-unit apartments could have been built all along Hawdon St and the revenue would have more than paid for that pond.

Many Dickson residents support higher densities in suitable locations – and land next to a new wetlands is a perfect example of a redevelopment opportunity the govt should rightly encourage and pursue. We all need a range of good housing options in our suburbs: well-designed apartments and townhouses will always be in demand, not just by younger householders but by people like us when our kids leave home and we start rattling around the place.

There were so many problems with the Marsden St development because anyone who took the time to look at the plans realised that occupants and their visitors couldn’t get in and out without complicated manoevring (which would produce noise and fumes for people who lived there and for the neighbours’ bedrooms and living areas over the fence), the private open space was so inadequate that only 2 out of 10 units met even the minimum criteria for the zone (which are only 6m x 6m, barely enough space to put an outdoor table and chairs let alone a clothes line, bins, BBQ or bike), and both side and rear setback rules were breached. At the last minute, AFTER 4 successive bites at the cherry while ACTPLA ummed and aahed but finally consented, they stripped away what little landscaping there was in the centre of the development to squeeze the driveway in and said voila!

Five or six units would have been fine, and that’s exactly what the govt’s new rules (which said overlord is sitting on) will allow if they ever get enacted. The RZ3 zones and RZ4 zones are where medium density housing was supposed to go and that land was identified by strategic planners in consultation with the community back in 2002, but canny developers have cottoned on to the fact that the planning agency is open to a bit of pushing and shoving and more than happy to let their own rules slide. Problem is, they don’t have to live next door to what they’re approving and the rest of us do!

johnboy said :

2) for the greens this is just the start, they want to whole creek to be wetlands where the water moves through much more slowly, that is it can back up.

If you have a look at the research, most of the ACTs creeks were originally little more than a series of large puddles that joined when it rained. The removal of trees and the introduction of sealed surfaces led to a massive increase of runoff into the creeks, while the introduction of damned lakes slowed the flow of water out of the creeks, thus helping them become the year-round free flowing things they are today.

The idea of permanent wetlands sits far outside the natural state of our creeks.

That being said, I think the ACT generally manages its storm-water really well. The use of ponds and lakes as water filtration and flood mitigation systems is fairly effective, and human created wetlands do create habitats for native birds and recreation areas for us.

sillysausage said :

The foolish thing is that the properties that border the new wetlands have each just been handed a 40 to 50K windfall, which is all very nice for the fortunate homeowners that overlook the new pond, but with a bit of good planning and appropriate rezoning 2 to 3-storey multi-unit apartments could have been built all along Hawdon St and the revenue would have more than paid for that pond.

I will confess to being one of the fortunate homeowners with a wonderful view overlooking the wetlands. I can confirm that we and our neighbours are very thankful to the Government for increasing our property values (though I did hear someone just around the corner complain that they thought the wetlands would decrease property values in the area because of the increased risk of flooding and mosquitoes. I think that’s crazy talk though.).

One thing though: I thought the Hawdon St side had already been rezoned to allow for medium density developments, but the Dutton St side hadn’t. Or was that part of the area where Andrew Barr got into a fight because he proposed rezoning but it was opposed by a residents group?

Also, re some of the earlier comments about flooding, there is an outlet/sluice of sorts underneath the observation deck bit at the North-West end of the wetlands to prevent that. There are also several very large water tanks that store water from the wetlands to be used to water the playing fields.

No chance of flooding caused by the wetlands at Dickson. The Stormwater drain is still there. If there’s that much water coming down from Hackett it’ll go straight past without even stopping once the wetlands are at their designed capacity.
We love it. It’s a nice easy ride/walk from home and once you get there the kids can ride around as much as they want and still be within view. Can’t wait for the grass to grow on those construction mounds so we can cut loose with the extensive nerf gun collection for a bit of urban trench warfare.

Wonder if they’ve done any feasibility on continuing dual carriageway from Cowper street through to the Antill roundabout? That whole section of Majura will be lined with those bloody apartments soon anyway. Might as well put in a decent road for the increased population.

Sandman said :

Might as well put in a decent road for the increased population.

Wait your turn. You’d think duplicating Cotter Rd between the Parkway and Adelaide Ave would be a high priority with the new suburbs being built along the Molonglo, but the possibility of more traffic has escaped the notice of planners so far.

I think this is fantastic.

Next I hope we will see the reconstruction of Sullivan’s Creek and the creeks that run through Woden and the park at Manuka.

I’ve noticed that the chemically treated Koppers logs around the O’connor/Lyneham wetland have suddenly been painted – perhaps having Koppers logs leaching arsenic into the wetlands isn’t a good look? If they honestly wanted to protect the wetlands they would have coated the posts before installing them. As they are, they’re pretending to be innocuous, while leaching into the soil from top to bottom, via the unsealed part of the post beneath the soil …

1. Why weren’t they pulled out and sealed properly?
2. Why were they put there in the first place?

Thumper said :

I think this is fantastic.

Next I hope we will see the reconstruction of Sullivan’s Creek and the creeks that run through Woden and the park at Manuka.

There might be a wetlands in Mawson, just north of Southlands, some time in the future. I’ve spotted people from UC around there taking photos, apparently for a wetlands proposal.

Our political masters have decreed that many common pursuits must be curtailed as a result of their potential for causing injury and damage.

Neighborhood parks have been stripped of their swings and roundabouts, smokers have been legislated out of existence, we (in the ACT) are not considered competent to turn right at an intersection without a green arrow, and burning off the garden waste is totally illegal.

Yet a body of water, designed to be as attractive as possible, is created in a high population, high traffic area. Has any thought been given to the drowning risks created, particularly from unsupervised children and inebriated adults?

Let’s get serious about the relative dangers in all this.

He doesn’t have a lot of friends there to support his cause and give a good photo op, does he?

Sandman said :

Wonder if they’ve done any feasibility on continuing dual carriageway from Cowper street through to the Antill roundabout? That whole section of Majura will be lined with those bloody apartments soon anyway. Might as well put in a decent road for the increased population.

Don’t be silly, Increased population only brings wonderful things, not congestion and greater expense.

And I see that there are now calls to fence the pond, for The Children.

Great, so now that we’ve had our big fire, ACT Labor and the Greens think it’s time for a big flood?

Love the Dickson wetlands and, as the Dickson wetlands remain a gazetted dogs-off-leash zone, so does the furry four-pawed member of our family.

I guess these artificial wetlands will be artificially filled with chlorinated tap water during the next big drought. Otherwise the neighbourhood kids will be witness to an environmental lesson in certain death for tadpoles & frogs when the water dries up.

cranky said :

Our political masters have decreed that many common pursuits must be curtailed as a result of their potential for causing injury and damage.

Neighborhood parks have been stripped of their swings and roundabouts, smokers have been legislated out of existence, we (in the ACT) are not considered competent to turn right at an intersection without a green arrow, and burning off the garden waste is totally illegal.

Yet a body of water, designed to be as attractive as possible, is created in a high population, high traffic area. Has any thought been given to the drowning risks created, particularly from unsupervised children and inebriated adults?

Let’s get serious about the relative dangers in all this.

Here’s a novel idea.

Parents could teach their children that large bodies of water can be dangerous.

Oh, and maybe they could teach them to swim.

I know, ridiculous idea. What was I ever thinking of…

For the uneducated, including the original poster, look up ecologically sustainable developemnt (ESD), and water sensitive urban design (WSUD) and urban design landscape architecture in general. The concrete drains built in the 1960, are the reason for flooding, also the reason the lakes in canberra have that lovely green shit all over them. Water retention ponds, wetlands and plantings return creeks and rivers to their natural flow rates, increase bidiversity and basically do lots of nice things to make urban environments better and more pleasant for you to live in.

But i guess it doesnt matter if having a slap at the pokies and drinking piss is your main sorce of enjoyment.

I imagine that in the event of a flood the stormwater carriage system will be used to expedite the water as was the case previously. Therefore I suspect this has improved Canberra’s ability to mitigate flood risks. I think this is a wonderful site for Canberra. Hopefully wildlife are attracted to it becasue the Jerrabomberra wetlands are in danger of being encroached upon by the heinous Kingston foreshore development.
Thank you ACT Greens!

cranky said :

Has any thought been given to the drowning risks created, particularly from unsupervised children and inebriated adults?

Let’s get serious about the relative dangers in all this.

Whilst I’d be happy to call it natural selection, it looks to me that all due thought has been given to the drowning risks.

Yes, let’s get realistic about the dangers here – and give a big thumbs up for the wetlands design, banning the inane burning of green waste, anti-smoking measures et. al.

I really don’t understand how anyone could think the design poses a flood risk. Both areas allow the same level of flow as before.

I doubt it would make much difference to flooding…

The way that flooding works is that the river banks (or drain banks) and obstacles exert friction on the water. This causes water to bank up. Eventually it banks up so much that at some point upstream, the river level breaks the banks.

I can’t see how these wetlands are that much of an obstacle for water that they would cause upstream flooding.

Nor can I see how they would absorb enough water or remove enough friction to prevent upstream flooding.

Also, JB was right that water saving is just me tooism. Overflow from our storm water and from Cotter both flow into the Murrumbidgie, it makes little difference which one we take our water from.