Time for a little rationality

In its original submission, HKR clung to the hope that Areas 6f and 10b would be served by government water. Alternate supply proposals were sketched out in the briefest terms.

Now that the government has confirmed that it will not supply potable water to the new developments, it is essential that HKR provide detailed studies and plans to show that its proposals are viable – before the TPB approves the rezoning application.

Water Supplies Department (WSD) is far from convinced of the viability of HKR’s proposals. In its comment on the HKR proposal, it stated “…we have reservation on the rationality of this arrangement…”.

Unfortunately, it appears as though HKR is unwilling to cooperate. In its reply to WSD, it contended that there was “never any concern raised” regarding potable water quality from the reservoir.

This is untrue. Before 2000, DB owners and residents raised numerous concerns about the quality of water from the reservoir, including runoff of chemicals from the golf course, and silting and dis-colouration. City Management carried out extensive flushing of the water mains in the late 1990s in an attempt to address these concerns.

HKR also has failed to address the issues raised during the public consultation.

A number of submissions noted that the study period for drought conditions was far too short. Future water demand from the reservoir will include not only potable water for the new developments, but also all water for flushing and irrigation for a residential population of 29,000 as well as all commercial users.

Proper supply/demand projections incorporating multi-year drought conditions must be provided.

The concerns raised about responsibility for maintenance of the new supply system have also not been addressed. WSD will not allow any mixing of government and DB water. Hence, an entirely new and separate water supply system is required.

Will maintenance of the new water supply and treatment infrastructure be paid for by the owners of Areas 6f and 10b? Will Area 6f and 10b owners pay a larger share of the maintenance responsibility for the reservoir? Will they continue to pay their proper share of City water supply expenses?

These are not mere details but fundamental issues of principle that must be addressed transparently and in accordance with the DMC prior to TPB approval of the proposed new developments.

The TPB must not take vague assurances as fact when reviewing the current application. Safe and reliable supply of potable water is far too important.

Please feel free to copy some or all of the above when replying to the TPB. Don’t wait until your submission is “complete”. You may make multiple submissions at any time on different topics, up to the 15 July deadline.

Submit New Comments on Area 6f Proposal

Submit New Comments on Area 10b Proposal