Lake Ginninderra Water Ski Training Site Proposal

Please find attached the ACT Water Ski Association submission in support of a Trial Water Ski Training Facility for Lake Ginninderra.

This topic will be discussed at the February 2012 meeting.

ACTWSA_Submission.pdf [1.2MB]
FinalEnvironmentalSummary.pdf [93KB]


Water Ski Training Site

Hi I DO NOT support this trial at all, the lake does not need the noise of Jet Boats going up and down, let alone the environmental impact. Other water uses do not need high power boats on the lake either, there is nothing like trying to have a nice walk around the lake or a fish, or even an nice canoe ride with the sound of jet boats  roaring in your ear. Honestly what are you thinking? NO WAY, LEAVE OUR LAKE ALONE! It is for the enjoyment of everyone including the wildlife that resides there!    

Water Ski Training Site

@Karlene Kennedy lmao Jet Boats... far from it. Please note: I have been a resident of the ACT for 37 years I dont water ski or wakeboard but im all for a FAIR GO. With all the lakes that we have in Canberra why cant the ACT Government find an area for them to use or build an ACT based training facility. Maybe the answer here IS to build a facility that will allow both recreational and professional users away from the residents of the ACT with nothing better to do then complain like Karlene Kennedy. The ACT Government built a world class mountain bike faciltiy @ a cost of $7.5 million and the ACT Water Ski Association is only asking for a small spot on a lake to train. I hope that the ACT Government give them a FAIR GO. I wish the ACT Water Ski Association the very best of luck. Last note for Karlene your right its OUR lake for the enjoyment of everyone that would include the Canberra-based water skiers.    

motor boats on Lake Ginninderra

As a resident of McKellar and user of Lake Ginninderra, I’m quite concerned about the impact of noise and wake that this proposal would have on so many recreational use of the lake and nearby residents. Lake Ginninderra is much smaller, more extensively used by recreational users and more isolated from background road traffic than the previously trialled East Basin site.  I believe that many of the impact mitigation factors seen during the trial at East Basin would not be present with the Lake Ginninderra site.  I’m unsure what has transpired in respect to the ACTWSA access to East Basin, but I'd see more merit in ACTWSA seeking to re-establish their previously approved access to East Basin before undertaking a trial in a more sensitive area. If the trial were to proceed, it would be essential (and unstated in the proposal) that a similar independent environmental review to that undertaken for East Basin be conducted. As an aside, I would a jaundiced view of NCA supporting the Lake Ginninderra trial noting their role in removing ACTWSA access to East Basin and, I believe, limited role in planning in respect to Lake Ginninderra.

BAC responses

Hello, below are some combined responses from Board and Staff members of Belconnen Arts Centre to the Water Ski Training Site Proposal: Belconnen Arts Centre’s concerns primarily stem from several areas: noise, detrimental effects on wildlife and the lake environment, reduced amenity for other lake users, and the lack of an appropriate impact study explaining the reasons why Ginninderra, a smaller lake without high levels of existing noise, would be appropriate where LBG would not.  ·         A concern for BAC is that this facility would be the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ which would open up the lake to large numbers of motorised craft through incrementally permitting additional use in future. ·         We are also concerned that waterskiing activity will encourage unauthorised use by people with personal craft who have observed others on the lake and feel this entitles them to use their own. We would like to know what measures are proposed, given the already stretched budget for TAMS, to monitor and enforce that only authorised craft use the lake? ·         The environmental study of Lake B-G is not relevant to Ginninderra.  A new one should be demanded if this proposal proceeds.   ·         The Sea Scouts must have some activities involving children happening on the water that would be jeopardised by motorised boats around the lake.  They as one of the other community groups using the foreshore should be included in any campaign. ·         Statements should be sought from the many environment groups that know about the unique environment of our lake:  Landcare, Canberra Ornothological Group, Frogwatch, Ginninderra Creek revitalization group that used to be run by John Carter  ·         Noise pollution is likely to be a major issue and must not certainly impact on performances and events at the centre. Surely, for the many residents now living around the lake, and the commercial restaurants and business on the lake foreshsore, it would have some impact. ·         First observation is that Lake Ginninderra is significantly smaller than East Basin LBG, and has much higher numbers of residential and commercial stakeholders who are closer to the training areas, so the environs testing must be tailored specifically to the Lake Ginninderra situation.   Stakeholders must be independently represented in setting up and monitoring the trial, were it to go ahead. ·         Explain better reasons why the Heritage Management Plan excluded the water-skiing and wake-boarding from Lake Burley Griffin. ·         We should obtain independent response from the Boathouse Restaurant owners as to the impact if any, on their patrons and/or business. ·         We would like to view the LBG trial period log book in its entirety. The overall assessment in the Final Evaluation Summary, referred to there being “not any major impacts” from the trial.  Can we review the full final evaluation document, rather than simply the Summary? ·         Is it intended that both ski and wake-boarding tow boats would operate at the same time, with the same restrictions, similar to the LBG trial?  Or is it intended that only one boat operates at a time as suggested in the proposal?  If it is intended that ultimately both sports practice at the same time, the noise and other testing should be monitoring the worst case scenario using both boats. ·         Before agreeing to a 4 month trial period, is it possible to have a one day trial where one or two boats (see above point) carry out training runs so as to enable LG stakeholders to understand just what noise levels are involved, other than being referred to an otherwise nebulous decibel standard for the zone?  Given the proximity of the runs to the BAC for example, and the possible funnelling of noise towards BAC the noise may be exacerbated. ·         The Final Evaluation Summary contained a curious reference to an “International Standard” for emissions, in discussing noise levels.  What is that international standard and is it really relevant? ·         What is intended be the working arrangement for the car park during training both pre and post trial (if approved) to necessitate signs as is proposed.  The reference in the Summary is unclear as to meaning. ·         If the trial were to result in an approved training facility with conditions, similar to those applied on LBG, what policing would there be of adherence to the conditions?  What facility would there be for other users to notify breaches of those conditions?  What would constitute such a breach as to result in a removal of the approval of the training facility? ·         The Arts Centre would like to see clearly advised terms and frequency of use before agreeing to a trial. ·         If a trial were to go ahead, advertised days and times made available through multiple avenues and most particularly for the Lake and surrounds users. ·         Concern for personal safety by participants, of the general public and other Lake users. Thank you for the opportunity to express these concerns, the Staff and Board of BAC look forward to these issues being addressed.

Mark Monteagle
BCC Treasurer


Can you expain that how waterskiing activity will encourage unauthorised use by people with personal craft who have observed others on the lake. During training session there are many other methods that must be considered whether it is car parking, facilities in training session or any thing else.

Lake Ginninderra w'skiing

Hi everyone, Further to my previous message it's possible that some sort of environmental statement should be prepared incorporating:
  • Damon's concerns
  • any issues relating to blue-green algae
  • why Molonglo reach is only for "social" waterskiing & isn't good enough for elite swimmers
  • oil spills
Aspects of this proposal which concern me include:
  • Is this being rushed through?
  • Is Lake G being considered because "it's out of sight, out of mind" from the NCA, the Lake BG heritage people?
  • Once elite waterskiing is entrenched it would be a short step for social water-skiing to be approved &/or an escalation of the power-boat mentality in a society that already has far too many "bigger & better" toys & ambitions & too much noise.
  • Are electric boats suitable or fast enough because the main "greenie" downside for w'skiing is fossil fuel use & emissions & noise?
  • The statement along the lines of "it's unfair for these young w'skiers to have to travel in order to train" is a load of cobblers. There's any number of talented (and sometimes very) young people who, throughout history, have had to move away from home in order to study, to be taught by "masters" or perfect skills.  
  • Should sport for these few be in a different perspective if it is going to have priority over the subtle health values of thousands of people and the ambience of a huge public asset? 
  • We need to press the point that these info-sheets are produced & realistically distributed. Voters are duped again & again by governments who do their planning or institute new concepts in secrecy. (Hoping that opposition will be minimal or that they can "get away with it")
  • We also need to reiterate that people do not sit at home in front of a screen or with the "public notices" in front of them looking for information and planning proposals. 
  • If believable, I liked the various points that Ben listed. He is a smooth operator. 
  • We need to ensure or can we check that other waterskiing sites are as useless as Ben &  Jane suggest?
There are other people or groups we could contact such as Walking For Pleasure, Fisherfolk, Lake Ginninderra College, Hawker College has the annual Ben Donohue Fun Run round the lake, public service lunchtime users.   Anyway, enough from me,   Rosemary (Blemings)  

re water ski trial on Lake Gininderra

(Text of email from Chris Davey, Canberra Ornithologist Group: replies follow)
I have received notice from the Lakes Officer (TAMS) that there will be a trial on Lake Ginninderra to look at the feasibility of allowing a water skiing and water boarding area (no not a torture area) on the lake.  The trail will go from April through to sometime in December 2012, after which there will be a period for public comment.
The area under consideration is along the western edge of the peninsular between the peninsular point and the boat ramp.
For us to have an informed input into the decision making process I believe we need to take the opportunity to gather information on any disturbance caused to the birds in the area.  I have asked that we are told when the events will be conducted so that it will allow us to document any disturbance.  In addition, I would like to survey the birds using the area both along the eastern edge (control) and the western edge of the peninsular.  This will mean walking along the edge or cycle/foot path to determine the number and species of birds using the area.
We need to gather as much information as possible so if there is anyone interested to help please contact me and I will provide you with a map and data sheets.


Chris Davey (President)       
24 Bardsley Place
ACT 2615
Tel: 02 62546324
MOB: 0418679847
Description: cid:image001.png@01CCBD8E.B92E3280
PO Box 301, Civic Square ACT 2608


re water ski trial on Lake Gininderra

Chris I must disagree with you that water skiing and water boarding (I assume the "Lakes Officer" knows so little about the activity that they don't know the usual name is wake boarding) are not torture.  How even TAMS could consider these activities so close to residences is beyond belief.   As it is narrow, the wake etc will have an imapact on birds right across the Lake. Martin  

re water ski trial on Lake Gininderra

You are right about the noise, Martin.  I remember trying to study for exams in Brisbane with speedboat races taking place on the Brisbane river outside the window.  It was not so much the boats, as the loud music and loudspeaker announcements that drove one potty.

Margaret Leggoe

re water ski trial on Lake Gininderra

It may be completely correct that "As it is narrow, the wake etc will have an impact on birds right across the Lake."  If so, is that impact of any significance? However I wonder if that is an issue of relevance to the "Lakes Officer". Not every thought in government or community processes primarily revolves around maintaining tranquillity for birds. If we find there is something COG can say of significance, then fine, do so. About "beyond belief", I wonder. Maybe many residents love the idea of water skiing. Do we know? The alternate plan requires substantial ecological and economic costs for these people to travel great distances to do their practice elsewhere. Philip

re water ski trial on Lake Gininderra

On a radio interview I heard yesterday, it was emphasised (by proponents of the trial, plus the TAMS person, Jane Carder ) that the trial would involve those practicing for water ski events only, and ONLY (much emphasis) a single boat on the water at anyone time, and that modern boats were "quiet"... . No mention of boat wash etc.  It was being proposed that the trial would be for 2 hrs every morning 5 days  a week plus some other "windows" of time, afternoons and weekends..(see details below) -
Robin Hide

More information here:


Water ski proposal for Lake Ginninderra

Updated February 22, 2012 22:37:46

The ACT Government has put forward plans to allow people to water ski and wake board on Lake Ginninderra at Belconnen.

Canberra-based water skiers currently have to travel interstate to train because the only authorised area in city's south is closed.

The Molonglo Reach water ski area, off Morsehead Drive was closed in November because of the safety risks from sandbar movement.

The stretch of river was also closed for an extended period during 2011 after extensive flooding left tree trunks and debris strewn along the river, posing safety problems for skiers.

The Government has begun community consultation on a proposal to trial the sport on Lake Ginninderra between April and Christmas.

Jane Carder from Territory and Municipal Services says the trial is not for social skiing, but to help people who want to train for water skiing competition.

"We're looking at really restricted hours under a very tight permit arrangement," Ms Carder said.

"They would be operating possibly in the early mornings, from 7:00am to 9:00am and maybe a window in the afternoon, maybe from 4:00pm to 6:00pm. But the exact times haven't been pinned down yet, until we've spoken to all other lake user groups.

"At this stage we are looking at the week days, possibly a small window on the weekend."

Only one water ski boat will be allowed on the lake at any one time during the trial.

Ms Carder says people attending a Belconnen Community Council meeting raised concerns about noise from ski boats, increased waves and the impact on wildlife.

"There was lot of questions, a lot of information was shared," she said.

"We'll be putting some signs up around the lake as well to let everyone else know that there is this trial proposed for the lake."

It is estimated there are about 100 competitive water skiers in the ACT.

Ben McCullogh from the ACT Water Ski Association says the members want to have a dedicated site for training.

"We don't have a training facility in the ACT, and in fact we don't have one in near proximity to the ACT," he said.

"So competitive water skiers based in Canberra really have to travel long distances to advance their skills and improve their competitiveness in the sport.

"These people need a permanent site where they can go and train, and they know the infrastructure is going to be there."

Topics: lifestyle-and-leisure, water-management, environment, belconnen-2617, act

First posted February 22, 2012 16:33:40

Thanks for that Robin.  My

Thanks for that Robin.  My guess is that property values in the Belconnen Town Centre area have just dropped by about 50%.

With respect to modern boats being quiet I recall going to a lecture in the basement of the National Library at some point in the last 5 years when these hooligans were allowed on Central Basin of LBG for the weekend.  Despite being indoors and underground the noise of the motors was extremely intrusive.


Where are the plans?!?

"The ACT Government has put forward plans..."   Where are the "plans"?  There is nothing on the TAMS website; all I've seen is the proposal by ACTWSA and heard a brief powerpoint presentation at the BCC meeting last week.  What is needed is detailed proposal, outlining the exact times, the monitoing arrangements etc so the public can make INFORMED DECISIONS about this "trial".

There is finally some info on

There is finally some info on the TAMS website and the website, but unable to leave public comments.  What are they afraid of???

Lake Gin WaterSkiing Proposal and Trial

I've just tonight been made aware of this proposal via my son having had a discussion topic at School to write letters to the editor expressing opinions.  As a regular lake user (kayak, fishing, walking, bike riding), I found this a strange way to find out about such a significant and imminent proposal. Although I have been away for a couple of weeks, I would have expected notices or requests for comment from users for some time in advance, ratther than a 10Feb council advice for a 20Feb mtg and a trial starting with a demonstration in 19March, then 8 months of trial! Certainly appears to be a rushed activity and not seriously seeking consultation. I agree with all the very rational and detailed questions laid out by BAC.  They need answers. Particularly the rationale for the LBG Heritage Plan shutting the East Basin down, and why redeeming works cannot be undertaken in the Molonglo River to allow recreational boating use it previously enjoyed.  Both areas substantially more isolated from residential population and quiet enjoyment users than the increasingly densely lined shores of Lake Gin. If water skiiing training is such a source of potential national pride, why is money not being spent to rejuvenate the existing and accepted venue, best suited to the outcome, that doesn't reduce the enjoyment and access of other users. The proposed times of early morning and evening are exactly when folk head out for a walk/ride, paddle or fish. All of which are appealing for the relative tranquility and water conditions. The proposed courses are exactly in areas used by fisherfolk and known to be habitat or traffic lanes of the native Murray Cod and Golden Perch residents. Recreational boat users have been required to use no more than silent electric motors for the use of the lake to preserve this environment up until now.  Why is this requirement suddenly invalid? The variability of Lake Burrinjuck water volumes for training (as stated in the Proposal) seems to be a couple of years out of date since the rains that shut the Molonglo Reach training area down, have also resulted in the overflowed Dam and many happy water skiers and wake boarders I have seen up there.  It's not a daily training venue, but it is only 1.5 hrs drive away for a bigger session. In conclusion, I see no compelling case, just the wish of a few without the consultation or even awareness of the many, and the guilty conscience of the NCA trying to make amends for a poorly handled and unexplained shutdown of a duely studied and justified training area. The case against has not been actively sought, collated and weighted against the proposal. No such trial should go ahead in these circumstances. Distinctly bothered, BMartin of McKellar.

Some feedback from various

Some feedback from various CRFA members: "Please add my voice to those objecting to the proposed trial.  I doubt I have anything new to offer by way of counter-argument, but my objections include noise, damage to banks, deprivation of access during key periods of the day to present users of the Lake, disturbance of fishing, potential for polution through fuel and oil spill and the creation of an undesirable precedent." "I agree with you in terms of the lake being to small and unsuitabe for powerboats based on the current user type (small water craft, electric powered and sailing vessels) and do not support the proposal. However, if they were to select a site based on affecting the least amount of users then I would suggest up past the bridge (where the raft is at the moment). This suggestion does not take any environmental effect (eg errosion, habitate destruction) caused buy larger than usual wake into consideration." "I think any water sking in the lake would be unacceptable the wash left behind from some of this boats would make kayaks and some small boats unstable and in those spots I think the boats would be travelling to quick and to closely to be safe. It would only be a matter of time before somebody got seriously hurt or worse" "I tend to agree with you that the size of the Lake is more suitable to passive recreation. The proposal opens the door for other powered craft – fishing boats. That idea has long been canned for LBG. Hopefully other users will oppose the idea but it’s a no from us" "I would like to express my concern for the proposed waterski/wakeboarding course at Lake Ginninderra. I feel that having powerboats on the lake for watersport purposes would only suit a very select few lake users at the expense of the vast majority of people. I, and many of my friends and family enjoy the lake for what it offers at the moment which is a quiet, peaceful place to go walking, kayaking or fishing. I feel that that constant whine of a high horsepower motor boat would ruin the relaxing environment that most lake users enjoy about Lake Ginninderra. Further to this, the proposed location of the course is perhaps the most used area by fisherman on the entire lake. My personal experience in this location following several years of frequent fishing along this stretch has taught me that it is perhaps the most likely area in the lake to provide a home for the native fish (stocked at great expense) to inhabit. There is a lot of ideal fish habitat along the proposed stretch including overhung banks, reeds and rocky outcrops which would no doubt be effected by the constant wake created by the ski boats. A large stretch of the lake in the proposed vicinity is already showing fairly significant signs of erosion. I spend a lot of time kayaking along the exact location of the proposed course and if the proposal was to proceed and ski boats were allowed on the lake, I would be forced to find an alternate location. I simply don't believe the lake is large enough to be shared by powered and unpowered water craft. I recognise that the proposal is only for specific times of the day however these times are generally the same times the lake is being used by many other members of the community. I also think that once powerboats are allowed on the lake in some capacity, it will open the door for misuse by other boat owners to use petrol motors for non ski related activities." "I feel the same way as you do about this, In addition to the points you make my thoughts are;
  •          if waterskiing is allowed on Ginninderra i think this would put additional pressure on native fish stocks in river systems from displaced anglers and;
  •          undermine the restocking programs aims to draw anglers away from the Murrumbidgee and surrounding high pressured areas  
  •          areas of the Molonglo and lake burley griffin would be most suitable for this purpose and redeployment of resources in these areas  would be much less costly (water police, jumps, surveillance)
  •          Areas currently used such as the Molonglo are already experiencing bank degradation & increased water turbidity since the ‘bank restoration projects’ were started decreasing water quality along that stretch of river
  •          ‘Secure gates’ over Multiple occasions have been damaged along the Molonglo for access to the river by power boat operators, will this also occur in lake Ginninderra?     
I acknowledge that at some stage some compromises must be made by some interest groups, working together to attain mutually beneficial outcomes would be preferable. If the trial in lake Ginninderra takes place, i  propose that;
  • prior to this occurring a heavy re snagging program be developed in areas away from the water ski site to Develop habitat areas for stocked fish to inhabit and breed
  • that the water-ski clubs and users are charged a levy for use of the site that also returns to fish stocking and water quality projects in these areas
  • that these activities and decisions made are reviewed regularly and the process is transparent and ethical"
"This item is on the agenda for our club meeting next Wednesday, but in anticipation, I can advise that we are opposed to the opening of any further waterways to water skiing which obviously includes Lake Ginninderra" "From my point of view, I also wouldn’t support water skiing on Lake Ginninderra in any way, shape or form. Apart from it being dangerous to other users of the lake, I believe it poses are more serious threat to the ecology of the lake and the wildlife that rely on the lake to support their lifecycles. Any ecological damage to the lake for a recreational purpose such as water skiing should not be condoned, let alone allowed to start in the first place." "My position would be that I would strongly oppose the use of Lake Ginninderra for water skiing even on a trial basis.  In order to accommodate waterskiing on such a small body of water, it would have to mean the exclusion of other users.  Given the speeds that ski boats travel, it would essentially mean that all other users would have designated "no go" zones just for safety reasons.  The boats and the speed they travel and noise they output will impact key fishing spots not to mention any other lake user (runners, walkers, etc).  It will also significantly limit navigation across and around the lake for other boats and kayaks.  This is my greatest concern.  We have already lost a large amount of access to our coastal fisheries and I for one will stand against any further loss of access" "I am against the proposal, just as I am sure the water ski club would have something to say if I was fishing / swimming / kayaking in the middle of their course in Fyshwick. My partner, her 8 year old and myself are regular uses of the lake and the bow waves created would result in us having to find an alternative location. In regards to the fish that the ACT Government made such a big media event about, the area selected is one of the very few rocky headlands that penetrate into the water to the base of the dam, and an area I would feel certain holds native species." ""

  Hi guys, I would just like

  Hi guys, I would just like to put my point forwards in regards to this matter. It would appear that many of the user groups of this forum have a distinct stereo type of water-skiers and wake boarders which is unfortunate for the group of us that do not particularly participate in the sport recreationally but for competition.   It seems to me the biggest concern everyone here has is noise, I would just like to let you know that because the lake would only be used by the waterski and wakeboard ACT clubs the boats they use are far superior to old style waterski boats that I believe is what you have in your head. Straight pipe exhaust loud as they come but in fact these new boats exhaust is actually designed to be quieter as the exhaust is emitted under or at the water level and some even have 90 degree tipped mufflers that direct exhaust into the water. I think to really put this in perspective there are much much louder cars on the road with modified exhausts that drive past businesses and residents near the lake that would cause a lot greater nuisance than the level of noise that comes from these styles of boats. They are not race boats their very sensible boats that cost upward of around $70 000 - $140 000 if your interested in looking for yourself I would be able to guarantee the only boats on the lakes would be from these manufactures:   These boats are not old clinkers, they are modern purpose built boats for these activities. No boat used on the lake would be over 6 years old.   The second topic that seems to be in hot debate is the impact on wildlife. I would just like to point out that the molonglo reach waterski area was used for competition and recreation for at least the last 40 years and I can assure you the birds never left the area, every time I ever was on the river you could always see all types of birds either in the water or in the trees next to the river, they really never seemed bothered. As for fish stocks and kayakers again I would use the example of the molongo area because I can clearly remember kayakers coming up from the lake Burley griffin basin and coming through the waterski area.   To add another point I actually would imagine that the introduction of waterski and wakeboard boats to the lake would be beneficial as the lake stays so stagnant and the movement of water caused by the boats could potentially improve the water quality which is why it is absolutely beyond me why the act government placed water circulators into lake burley griffin to combat the build up of blue green algae. They could of saved themselves the $350 000 and just allowed power boats on the lake!   However I do agree with the members on here in terms of the policing of the activities because it does need to be policed heavily. I can see Joe Blow the bogan and all his mates turn up with their jet skis and jet boats and put them on the lake, which would ruin it for everyone. As a possible solution could removable bollards be placed in front of the ramp so kayakers would still be able to use to use the ramp but to put a boat it the bollard would need to be removed and only the park rangers and members of the waterski and wakeboard clubs have a key to the bollard?   The last point I would like to make is the trial will be run from now till January 2013 which is all the way through winter which I believe many kayakers and other lake users will not be in as higher concentration as they would be in the warmer months so I really only see many of these issues with other lake users arising in October onwards.   At the end of the day we are just a lake user group just like all of you guys just we happen to use a motor and I believe this is a great thing we will be allowed on an ACT lake and if its in a sectioned off area of the lake it would have minimal impact on other users. Please let me know your thoughts I would love to answer any other questions you may have about the boats or safety implications or anything, cheers.

Noise the least of the concerns

Jake, I attended the demo and yes, the boat was fairly quiet.  The wake was smaller than I expected too, but still caused some churning and muddying of the water's edge near the beach.  ANd that was just from a couple of runs that lasted a few minutes.   Policing and monitoring is an issue.  I can't see TAMS out there monitoring things EVERY time the ski boats are out.  Bollards at the ramp are not going to work, because it would stop other boat users (who can use electric motors with a permit) from launching their boats.  I can't see TAMS issuing hundreds of keys!   I'm yet to be convinced that powered recreation is compatible with non-powered on such a small waterway, regardless of how frequent the usage will be.  I can currently grab my kayak and head down to Ginninderra any time I like and happily share the lake with anyone else who might be there using it.  That won't be possible with a waterski course plonked in the middle of the best fishing spots, and to be frank about it, that's not a freedom I am willing to give up without a fight.   What needs to happen is the government needs to bite the bullet and fix Molonglo Reach so training can go back there.  Why can't ACTWSA raise the funds themselves or apply for a grant like everyone else who wants to improve/fix their facilities?  Ginninderra needs to remain power boat free!

beach errosion

It is such a well known fishing spot the thing be happy to have the courses anywhere on the lake but around the other side of the peninsula is in front of the retirement village which I would assume is a no go. what about in that top part past the bridge? ive always thought that would be a good area of water-skiing I just have concerns about how shallow it is seeing that it is the run in point from the creek into the lake. casino en ligne français


Run out of things to complain about guys?

Publishing last comment

I published the last comment but I prefer that people not be just abusive. I am aware that previous comments have used abusive language such as 'hoons' but they were making a point (or vote) one way or the other.

We're not hoons

Yea I have also realised that, which is why with my first response I was trying to not get angry and show my points of view professionally. It just really annoys me that people can make such rediculous claims with absolutley no reasoning or evidence and the way some of the responses were worded like it will become a waterskiing lake and thats it. I bet not even one of them did a quick google search to have a look at wakeboard and waterski boats and what its about and striaght away just label us as hoons. Straight away be concerend about the eco system and the brids without looking at the report done of the trial that took place on Burley Griffin in 2006 or look at the molonglo river where boats have been used for 40 years. I'd be happy to take any of you out in my boat on the lake to show you what we are about and what we want only a small part of the lake for, many of you have blown this this debate completely out of proportion.

The lake should stay as what

The lake should stay as what it is by now. I love seeing the lake and I hope some people wont go and mess the lake out and bring some motorboats in it instead of having a good and cool time watching it while in the lake side. Mylvin