Parkwood, shown with the border as it currently stands, is only accessible through the ACT. Image: File.
The ACT Government has doubled down on calls for a major cross-border housing development to be incorporated into Canberra before any water-sharing agreements are made with Yass Valley.
The NSW and ACT governments, along with Yass Valley Council, previously signed a ‘Parkwood Protocol’ agreement to ensure residents have access to necessary services and infrastructure to live comfortably.
In a May 2026 letter from Chief Minister Andrew Barr to NSW Premier Chris Minns, Mr Barr wrote that bringing Parkwood into the Territory was essential for any water sharing agreement with Yass Valley.
“[The] ACT Government advises that the supply of water via the ACT to any locations within the Yass Valley Council local government area (including those which are the subject of current negotiations) would now be conditional on the ACT-NSW border being adjusted to incorporate Parkwood into the Australian Capital Territory,” Mr Barr wrote.
He noted that the position followed Yass Valley Council backing away from an “existing public position which supported a border adjustment” and the possibility of creating a northern public access road over Ginninderry Creek.
“[It] has impacted the ACT Government’s confidence that any cross-border supply of water would be supported by a shared vision on sustainable regional growth and has prompted a recalibration of the Territory’s interests.”
The Parkwood development can only be accessed by road through the ACT and is being designed to be an integrated community with ACT-style service delivery.
It had been the subject of political debate over whether it should cross the border and officially join Canberra, or remain part of Yass Valley.
In response to questions from Region, an ACT Government spokesperson said the border move would avoid the “cost and complexity” of providing services to residents in a different jurisdiction.
“Given Parkwood’s close geographic and functional connection to the ACT, a border change is the most practical, equitable and sustainable solution.”
But a spokesperson for Yass Valley Council said that before a December 2025 meeting, when council voted to keep Parkwood under its control, they didn’t have a formal position on the matter, and water supply and the Parkwood development were unrelated.
“Tying essential utility access for unrelated development areas to the border relocation issue creates unnecessary friction,” they told Region.
“Council continues to consider the options available with regard to ensuring future water security, including being open to regional collaboration with the ACT Government.”
In the December 2025 meeting, Yass Valley Council also received a report detailing the impacts of keeping Parkwood on their books.
The council spokesperson said their commitment to keeping Parkwood part of Yass Valley remained, despite acknowledging that “several complexities” still need to be worked through.
A comprehensive contributions plan is in the works and will guide the provision of council-provided infrastructure.
“As part of the planning proposal approved by the NSW State Government, there was no requirement for any border realignment and ACT infrastructure providers indicated their ability to service the development, irrespective of border location.
“Council acknowledges the ACT Government’s preference in relation to the location of Parkwood.”
The letter will be formally received by Yass Valley Council at their meeting on Thursday (28 May).
In a post on social media ahead of the meeting, Yass Valley councillor Alvaro Charry hit out at Mr Barr’s comments.
“For Andrew Barr to effectively signal that future negotiations surrounding water access for communities within the Yass Valley may now become conditional upon border adjustment discussions relating to Parkwood is, in my view, a very disappointing development,” he wrote.
“It is no secret that water security is one of the most critical long-term challenges facing regional NSW. It is too important an issue to become entangled in broader territorial negotiations or political leverage.”
Original Article published by Claire Sams on Region Canberra.
