Mr WOOD - 2006-02-16
Last Thursday, your department announced that the Stuart Highway would have 4.5 tonne load limit at the Bootu Creek underpass, the reason being that the road has been extensively damaged and sections of the bridge had sunk because the underpass has been full of water which could not drain away. I table a photograph of the Bootu Crossing about the end of January. I think that water is down by about half of what it was originally.
As your department always requires approval for access onto, under, or over the Stuart Highway reserve, and as your department has to approve the design of that access, is your department in any way responsible for the damage caused to the highway by this underpass? Is the government also liable for any of the substantial cost in keeping the highway open, pumping the water out of the underpass, paying a traffic controller to be on site for 24 hours, pumping concrete under the bridge, and the eventual repair of the highway? If so, what are those costs?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. I have been advised by the department that this particular underpass was designed and constructed at the expense of the proponents, that is Bootu Creek Resources. Neither government nor the department accept any liability for what has occurred there. I am also advised that the flooding and the rain were quite excessive by anyone’s standards. The bottom line that I have been advised is that the underpass works are subject to a defects liability period, therefore all reinstatement works are at full cost to the developer and contractor. The short answer to your question, member for Nelson, is that government is not accepting any liability or any cost to do with the damage that is associated there and that is what I can relay to the House.
As your department always requires approval for access onto, under, or over the Stuart Highway reserve, and as your department has to approve the design of that access, is your department in any way responsible for the damage caused to the highway by this underpass? Is the government also liable for any of the substantial cost in keeping the highway open, pumping the water out of the underpass, paying a traffic controller to be on site for 24 hours, pumping concrete under the bridge, and the eventual repair of the highway? If so, what are those costs?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. I have been advised by the department that this particular underpass was designed and constructed at the expense of the proponents, that is Bootu Creek Resources. Neither government nor the department accept any liability for what has occurred there. I am also advised that the flooding and the rain were quite excessive by anyone’s standards. The bottom line that I have been advised is that the underpass works are subject to a defects liability period, therefore all reinstatement works are at full cost to the developer and contractor. The short answer to your question, member for Nelson, is that government is not accepting any liability or any cost to do with the damage that is associated there and that is what I can relay to the House.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016