The 4350water Blog highlights some of the issues relating to proposals for potable reuse in Toowoomba and South East Qld. 4350water blog looks at related political issues as well.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Vote for me -- and I'll never make you drink from the toilet ...

A great read:

CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE LONG BEEN TOLD, is the place where America's trends are born. The way we live is determined there -- things that seem odd and cutting-edge take root in California, then slowly work their way to the rest of us. By the time we're ready for them, they don't seem so odd anymore.

But I'm willing to go on record: This new toilet-to-tap-water idea that is beginning in California right now will never catch on anywhere else. There is no way in the world that the rest of the country will ever buy into this.

You may have heard about it (if you haven't, you're lucky):

Sewage water flushed down the toilets of residents of California's San Fernando Valley will, under the plan, be sanitized -- and then end up as drinking water that comes out of faucets of people in the Los Angeles area.

This is all being done is the name of environmental concerns and ecological benefits.

The purification of the water flushed down toilets reportedly takes five years. By the time people drink it, it allegedly will be just fine -- tasty and clean.

Yet -- as Lori Dinkin, president of the Valley Village Homeowners Association, told the Los Angeles Daily News -- "This is human waste. I'm very uneasy about that."

Indeed. Environmental groups have said that this toilet-to-tap-water method will assure that the Los Angeles area will not have to depend on water pumped in from other parts of the state, and that by drinking cleaned-up toilet water, residents will be doing something that "is less destructive to wildlife habitats in Northern California and along the Colorado River."

Which is all very praiseworthy -- wildlife habitats should be preserved and protected whenever possible -- but if it means telling people that the water they are gulping down is water that, five years before, was flushed from the toilets of strangers. . . .

Well, you'd think that political realities alone would kill this plan before it even gets started.

It would be the dream position for any California politician to be able to take: He or she could face the electorate, and, in speeches and radio and television commercials, say about the incumbent:

"Friends, may I remind you that during my opponent's administration, you were told that you must drink water that was flushed from other people's toilets."

You would think that there might be a 100 percent turnover in the California political structure. Out would go every elected official who was in office when the toilet-to-tap-water plan took effect; in would come every candidate who would tell voters that he or she is disgusted by the very idea.

The subject of water -- where it comes from, how it is paid for -- is a complicated one, and it is one that citizens prefer not to have to think about too much (and, in fact, virtually all tap water is recycled in one way or another). Twenty-five years ago, you never would have guessed that Americans would willingly pay for bottles of water to drink, the same way they pay for soda pop; now it is so common that even McDonald's sells water in bottles, and people seem convinced that if they are swigging down a bottle of water they have paid for, it is fresher and tastier than what they might get from the tap. (They make this assumption even though they usually have no idea where the bottled water came from, and how long it has been sitting around some warehouse, or in the hold of some ship on its way to the United States from Europe.)

This California plan, though . . . you would think that someone in authority would have overruled the scientists. Obviously the scientific experts believe with complete confidence that, in the five-year cleaning program, water flushed from toilets can be so thoroughly purified and sanitized that there is no chance at all for any problems.

Still . . . someone should have sat down with them and said:

"How do you think people are going to react when we tell them: `Drink this water. Someone went to the bathroom in it and flushed it down the toilet five years ago, but this should not concern you at all. We can vouch for the goodness of this former toilet water -- after all, we're the government. Trust us on this.'"

No, whatever happens with the toilet-to-tap-water plan in California, you can assume that this is one trend that will never make it past that state's borders. All around the United States, politicians are polishing their campaign slogans for every election year in the century ahead:

"Vote for me -- and I'll never make you drink from the toilet."

JWR contributor Bob Greene is a novelist and columnist.
8 May 2000

See - Vote for me.

It ain't over yet ...

Following the report and photo of the concrete pour in yesterday's Chronicle, I was asked whether the project is going ahead regardless of many issues being outstanding.

The answer is no.

Current progress on the Wetalla water reclamation project does not mean that the I-PU! project is a done deal.

The Advanced Water Treatment Plant (stage 1) is not due to be completed until 2007 with stage 2 to be completed in 2009 (if the project gets the go ahead at all).

See: http://www.toowoombawater.com.au/introduction/proposed-timelines.html

The current work relates to 4 star (non-drinking) water. The advanced plant is hoping to produce 6 star water (the water the Mayor wants us to drink).

So, it ain't over yet folks. The debate is just beginning (and will now start to get interesting!).

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

WeTellYa - 32% pure and 68% naughty!

WeTellYa is the name of the Wetalla Water Alliance newsletter updating progress on the Wetalla Water Reclamation Project.

Interestingly, when you search the term "WeTellYa" on Yahoo or Google, it brings up "entertaining couple looking to meet others - 32% Pure and 68% Naughty"!

I can guess which Alliance partner is pure and which is naughty. But how does the Council fit into this ménage à trois?

Top 5 alternatives for the Wetalla water reclamation facility

With one of the largest continuous concrete pours in Toowoomba yesterday to complete a portion of the slab for the project's reactor tank, I thought it would be useful to suggest some other uses for the concrete slab.

See: http://www.thechronicle.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3654430&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

The top 5 are:

1. One large horizontal obelisk - another Mayoral monument!
2. A runway for Toowoomba's new airport (would require further concrete)
3. A new Council carpark (downtown shuttle buses required)
4. Site of the new library for Toowoomba (more shuttle buses required)
5. New Council chambers (we don't see them in this debate, they might as well be out of town!)

Note that the pouring of the concrete slab does not mean that the recycled drinking water facility has the green light. Nothing is finalised yet. In fact, the Deputy Mayor didn't even mention the issue of recycled drinking water in the comments reported:

"As well as producing three-star reclaimed water, the upgrade will help us meet targets for improving the health of the Gowrie Creek system within the Murray-Darling Basin," Cr Ramia said.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Knowing your partner (updated) ...

Seems CH2M Hill (one of the companies building Toowoomba's I-PU! project) have annoyed more than one US Senator. In one Senator's view, CH2M Hill has a conflict of interest relating to contracts awarded to it in Iraq:

"Another instance of a conflict of interest involves Parson’s partner on the contract to oversee the public works and water projects, CH2M Hill, a global engineering and construction firm. CH2M Hill has ongoing domestic contractual relationships with Washington Group International, Fluor, and AMEC – three of the firms that it and Parsons are supposed to oversee. For example, CH2M Hill and Washington Group International are 'integrated partners' on a $314 million Department of Energy contract in the United States."

See: http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2004/05182004_iraq.html
Also:
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20040623123249-86281.pdf
And:
http://www.planetsave.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4758&Itemid=33

Another interesting comment:

CH2M Hill's "public relations wing helps with 'community involvement' so that no pesky activists get in the way of a project".

See: http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/green-power-archive/msg00073.html

Even more interesting is an investigation in Cleveland, Ohio into bribes paid by a CH2M Hill consultant to a Council. Apparently, money was paid for consulting fees not to be passed on as bribes. It was noted that none of the companies involved have been indicted.

"The indictment says CH2M Hill paid Gray as much as $10,000 a month in fees while the firm had a contract to operate the East Cleveland water system. Gray bribed then-East Cleveland mayor Emmanuel Onunwor to keep the company's contract, prosecutors said. A CH2M Hill lawyer said the business had no idea that Gray was paying bribes to Onunwor and would never have approved such a thing."

The "federal indictment ... charges prominent Cleveland consultant Nate Gray with creating a secret machine that corrupted public officials with cash, Super Bowl tickets, massages and limousines".

"Gray ... sought technically complex engineering and energy-savings contracts for such national firms as ... CH2M Hill ... even though his education ended with high school and he has no training in engineering or architecture, according to the indictment."

See: http://www.waterwebster.com/ClevelandOhiowaterinvestigation.htm
Also: http://www.cleveland.com/gray/plaindealer/index.ssf?/gray/more/1106217314245491.html
And: http://www.cleveland.com/gray/plaindealer/index.ssf?/gray/more/110613076892791.html

It should be noted that, at a senior corporate level, CH2M Hill is committed to zero tolerance to combat corruption and bribery.

See: http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/62+Companies+Commit+to+a+Zero-Tolerance+Policy+to+Combat+Corruption+and+Bribery

And yet more problems:

In March 2005, CH2M Hill "failed in a bid to suppress testimony of an expert who is expected to say the firm's negligence led to a large explosion at a sewage treatment plant that caused more than $2 million in damage and seriously injured a worker at the plant."

In 1999, CH2M Hill apparently "settled a separate lawsuit filed by the injured worker for $550,000, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel."

See: http://www.storyhill.net/IssuesCH2MHillSuit.htm

And still more problems:

In March 2004 in Hanaford, Central Washington, vapors were reported to be seeping out of massive waste tanks buried at a cleanup site, the largest clean up project in the US.

CH2M Hill "acknowledged that the employees exposed to vapors didn't have protective masks, despite the fact that a venting system that draws away fumes had not been working for more than a week. Technicians were monitoring the area and had not detected dangerous levels of chemicals, namely ammonia and organic chemicals".

A "department auditor found that CH2M Hill had not done proper testing to assure that its instruments could accurately measure high levels of ammonia, although the issue was discovered 'a few years ago'. CH2M Hill officials did not comment on the auditor's findings, but said that work is halted well before ammonia concentrations reach the levels in question."

"CH2M Hill officials said improvements have been made to better protect employees, including sealing tanks with foam to prevent vapor leaks, construction of stacks so fumes are released away from workers and the increased availability of protective masks."

"Lewis's complaints resulted in company-sponsored "harassment, ridicule, taunting and a hostile working environment, his lawsuit said. Last fall, CH2M Hill settled the lawsuit with Lewis and two other electricians for an undisclosed sum."

"Workers and some union officials say that these are steps in the right direction, but that more needs to be done. That, too, was the finding of an expert panel that CH2M Hill commissioned to evaluate vapor risks. Four outside experts recommended in a report last October that the company should require that all tank farm workers wear hooded respirators on the job -- until workers, unions and outside critics can agree with the company on health risks caused by tank vapors."

"CH2M Hill, however, killed the report. In its place, the company asked the four experts to each write separate opinions because they 'don't all agree on everything'. But in interviews three of the four authors said they all had been in agreement and two of them said they believe the report was killed because the company did not like it."

See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/166256_hanford25.html
Also:
http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1368

And more:

"In March 1992, the GAO reported on its investigation of excessive charges made by one of the EPA's largest Superfund contractors, CH2M Hill. It found that CH2M Hill had charged EPA for providing clients with tickets to sporting events, supplying alcohol at company parties, and paying social club dues. The EPA inspector general in 1992 found that CH2M Hill had received $21.4 million in ineligible or unsupported charges between 1987 and 1988."

See: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3f.html


Interesting ...

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Toowoomba Chronicle - balanced reporting or in fear of the Council?

Does the Toowoomba Chronicle give a balanced view to both sides of Toowoomba's recycled water (I-PU!) debate?

Is the paper giving equal time to opponents of the I-PU! proposal?

Are the articles on I-PU! accurately portraying the debate?

Is the paper in fact capable of investigative reporting at all or merely reporting "he said this ..." or "she said that ..."?

Should a complaint be made to the Australian Press Council?

Just a thought .....

Honey, I lost the house ...

Section 240 of the Qld Local Government Act 1993 states that "[a] councillor does not incur civil liability for an act or omission done honestly and without negligence under this Act".

Something for the Council to consider:

Have all the decisions relating to the Toowoomba recycled water project be taken honestly and without negligence?

Would the failure to properly consult the community be considered negligent?

Would the failure to reconsider previously disregarded alternatives be considered negligent?

Any chance that individual Councillor's houses are on the line over this ???

Indirect potable use not on Federal Government agenda ...

In a Letter to the Editor published in the Courier Mail on 1 August 2005, Mr Greg Hunt, Federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment made an interesting point:

"[n]either I nor the Federal Government wants Australians to drink treated sewerage effluent. Our objective is to recycle this water for use in industry and agriculture".

See: Water Futures blog.

If this is the view of the Federal Government, surely the National Water Commission will refuse to provide a grant for the Toowoomba I-PU! project ...

Friday, September 23, 2005

Can the Mayor define "independent"?

The Mayor has said that she does not regard the fact that Dr Leslie is working on research projects for his university partially funded by CH2M Hill (the same company building the Toowoomba I-PU! project) as compromising his independence.

To quote the Mayor: "Participation in this research project does not in any way compromise Dr Leslie's independence in relation to the Water Futures project."

See - Water Futures blog.

So CH2M Hill provides funding for Dr Leslie's research projects and he suddenly appears to promote the benefits of a project to be built by CH2M Hill?

Maybe we're missing something but this scenario seems like a potential conflict of interest...

National Water Commission grants - what happens

Here is the sequence of events for grants by the National Water Commission:

1. NWC calls for proposals

2. Potential applicant consults with NWC to discuss

3. Applicant consults Water Smart guidelines and develops project application

4. Water Smart application submitted to NWC

5. Review by NWC staff and liaison with proponent, including possible site visits

6. NWC Commissioners assess and rank submitted projects

7. Formal recommendations to the Prime Minister for decision

8. Decision by Prime Minister and announcement of successful projects

9. Project agreements developed

10. Project implementation

11. Continuing reporting and monitoring

12. Project completion and wind up

13. Post-project evaluation

See - NWC application process.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

To grant or not to grant ...

In order to proceed with the Toowoomba water recycling project, the Mayor needs funding from various sources, including a grant from the National Water Commission who will make the grant upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

I wonder if the National Water Commission have read the report on issues encountered in advancing Australia's water recycling schemes:

See - Parliamentary Report.

Can the Commission recommend a grant for a project which includes indirect potable use (I-PU!) when the report prepared for the Federal Parliament states:

"Australia takes the position of using the best source of water possible and using recycling to free up drinking water in preference to directly replenishing supplies. Reasons for this approach include the unknown long-term outcomes from ingesting recycled water and the expense involved in programs that monitor the quality of treatment to avoid the possibility of adverse effects." (Page 26)

"At present, experts are rarely able to agree on risk levels. When technical experts cannot agree, it is unlikely that the general public will have confidence in the results. Therefore more research is required about the way in which contaminants operate." (Page 26-27)

"Investment in scientific research is needed - particularly in relation to how contaminants and pathogens can be inactivated, improving treatment plant and pipe system cleaning operations, and improving efficiencies." (Page 36)

How will they justify a grant in the face of this report?

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Is it really worthwhile?

In the Toowoomba Chronicle on 5 September 2005, Mr Kevin Flanagan, Council Director of Engineering Services is quoted as saying in response to a suggestion that the recycled water project be limited to industry use: "[u]nfortunately we don’t have enough industry in Toowoomba (to warrant the huge cost)".

See - Chronicle - Flanagan comments.

So, the project is not economically viable if used just for industry. But there's no proof of the long-term effects from drinking the recycled water?

Are Toowoomba's residents and ratepayers being forced to drink the recycled water merely to justify the cost of providing it to industry?

Maybe we all need to look at other solutions?

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Toowoomba says no to free water solution?

Is it true that Toowoomba City Council has rejected an offer from Qld Gas Company to supply Toowoomba with free water solving Toowoomba's water crisis?

See: Water Futures blog.

Surely this must rank as one of the worst decisions ever!

Here is a company which says it doesn't want to see the water go to waste and wants to provide it to Toowoomba (and other towns) for free. And then there's the Council who wants to spend $68 million on its I-PU! facility. Surely the pipeline cost would not exceed $68 million!

Why the rush to spend the money?! Why not use this water as an interim solution while long-term studies on the effects of ingesting I-PU are prepared?

Why not reconsider the decision?!

Something stinks in Toowoomba and it's not the water (yet!)

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Lab rat city ...

Can anyone explain to me why Toowoomba's residents are not the experimental laboratory rats for Australia.

Toowoomba will be the first city in Australia to use I-PU!

Presumably, if there are no long-term health effects from drinking the recycled water, other Australian cities may adopt the same technology.

Sounds to me like Toowoomba is lab rat city. Let's try it on the country cousins in Toowoomba. If they're ok, maybe we'll use it elsewhere ...

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Is this Blog stupid??

A comment was made on this Blog that it is stupid.

Is open debate on issues which will change the way people in Toowoomba live stupid?

Should the Toowoomba City Council be more open and transparent in its approach to this issue?

The answer to both questions seems pretty clear.

Not everyone will agree with open debate. There are those who just do not care. Odds are it will be these people clamouring for compensation in future years if everything does not turn out as expected.

Kerry Shine to make sure Toowoomba North gets a fair go!

Well, that was the election hype anyway.

See - Team Beattie.

In the Team Beattie election brochure, Kerry Shine was going to "continue to stand up for your community and make sure you get a fair go".

Kerry's own message was: "I am passionate about getting the best deal I can for the Toowoomba North community."

Will the residents of Toowoomba North get a fair go on the recycled water issue Kerry?

How passionate are you about that?

Sunday, September 11, 2005

How the Council can win the debate ...

This debate is very easy for the Toowoomba City Council to win.

All they have to do is provide the residents and ratepayers of Toowoomba with long-term studies which show there are no harmful effects from long-term drinking of recycled water.

That's pretty simple, isn't it?

If the technology works as well as they say it does, wouldn't there be long-term studies showing that it's ok to drink over the long-term without any adverse effects?

Maybe that's the problem - there aren't any long-term studies. If there are, why doesn't the Council produce them?

They keep saying "it's safe" but where is the evidence to back this up?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Are there better alternatives?

Is I-PU?! a last resort?

Are there better alternatives?

Water from Wivenhoe Dam is pumped up to the Table Top Estate just below the Toowoomba Range. Why not just up the Range as well? Surely the technology exists to do this. And for a lot less than $68 million!

Will the Qld Government give Toowoomba access to Wivenhoe Dam water or will they keep it for Brisbane and Lockyer Valley residents?

Is the Qld Government creating two classes of citizens - those in Brisbane and up to the bottom of the Toowoomba Range who are allowed to drink dam water and those in Toowoomba who have to drink the recycled stuff?

One state = two classes of citizens.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

More hot statistics ...

A recent CSIRO-Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship report (May 2005) contains some interesting statistics.

See - CSIRO - Predicting Reuse Behaviour.

Surveys were conducted in Perth regarding the use of recycled water.

And here are some of the results!

Two surveys were taken of participants - Survey 1 which was a preliminary phone survey and Survey 2 which occurred after people had completed recycled water taste tests.

Use of treated wastewater for drinking:

Survey 1 - 45.7% thought it unacceptable or highly unacceptable (with 22.8% presumably undecided).

Survey 2 - 57.1% thought it unacceptable or highly unacceptable (with 19.8% presumably undecided) (Page 11).

The report indicates that the participants were less accepting of recycled wastewater the closer it moved to human contact (drinking it being the highest form of human contact in the survey questions).

The fairness of asking people to use treated wastewater for drinking:

Survey 2 only - 62.7% thought it unfair or extremely unfair (with 16.5% presumably undecided) (Page 12).

"Participants seemed to have lowered acceptance of reuse after being faced with recycled water" (Page 11).

Participants also consistently felt less trusting of private companies and local councils to manage wastewater programs in WA (Page 13).

The survey was part of a three year investigation which resulted in a report entitled "Predicting Community Behaviour in relation to Wastewater Reuse". The number of people surveyed was relatively small and people were NOT forced to swallow the samples!

Interestingly, the report notes that participants who attended the experiment were the more pro-reuse and pro-environmental sector of the Perth population (Page 48).

Imagine if the CSIRO did a similar survey in Toowoomba. Would the results be any different?

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Water water everywhere ...

Is the Toowoomba City Council serious about conserving water?

It doesn't seem so judging by their latest effort to fix a broken water main.

See - Chronicle - broken main debacle.

Thousands of litres of water were wasted before Council plugged the leak.

Maybe they think there will be a bountiful supply of recycled water before long and it's not necessary to save what's left in the dams ...

$3 million for a shed?

It is written somewhere that the Visitor Information Centre for the Toowoomba recycled water facility will cost $3 million.

That's an unbelievable waste of money.

More on this when we track down the number ...

Who are Toowoomba's elected officials?

Just who are the officials elected to represent the best interests of the residents and ratepayers of Toowoomba?

The Mayor - Di Thorley

and her merry gang:

Cr Regina Albion (re-elected in 2004)
Cr Michele Alroe (re-elected in 2004)
Cr Graham Barron (newly elected in 2004)
Cr Keith Beer (newly elected in 2004)
Cr Sue Englart (re-elected in 2004)
Cr Joe Ramia (re-elected in 2004) (also Deputy Mayor)
Cr Michelle (Ruby) Schneider (newly elected in 2004)
Cr Lyle Shelton (re-elected in 2004).

See - List of Councillors.

Only a couple of new faces in the group elected in 2004. Remember, they're in there for four (!) years.

Interestingly, the Deputy Mayor's portfolio is Water and Wastewater.

See - Deputy Mayor's portfolio.

We're not hearing much from the Deputy Mayor about this issue? And yet it's his portfolio! Why is that?

And what about the views of the other Councillors?

Too afraid to speak out against the Mayor? Too busy protecting a comfortable Councillor's job?

Nothing in the press or on the Water Futures Toowoomba website about a unanimous decision of Council to pursue I-PU!

Plenty of silence - not much information ...

Forum flops or designed to flop?

On 5 September, The Toowoomba Chronicle carried an article titled "Forum flops as expected crowd fails to turn up".

But was it designed to flop?

How many Toowoomba residents knew where and when it was to be held? I know residents who had no idea it was on.

There's no reference to it on the Water Futures Toowoomba website. Was it widely advertised?

At the meeting, according to the press report, the Mayor is quoted as saying the Council is going to distribute written information.

There's only one piece of written information I want to see - written conclusive proof that ingesting I-PU! does not have long-term consequences.

Why does the Council avoid addressing that issue, fudging by saying "the process is safe" and "it removes bacteria".

Is anyone on the Council prepared to actually sign their name to a document that the process is safe?

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

The yuk factor ...

Interesting article on the recycled water debate from the Sydney Morning Herald (5 September 2005).

See - SMH - the Yuk Factor.

Both sides of the debate represented but the article ignores the report by the Australian Parliamentary Fellow (discussed earlier - here's the link: Parliamentary Report).

Dr Leslie is quoted in the SMH article as saying: "I would have no problems with my five-year-old drinking the water from the type of plant Toowoomba is proposing."

But the reality, Dr Leslie, is that your daughter isn't going to be drinking the water because you don't live in Toowoomba. Nor do any of the other experts brought in to say it's safe. It's very easy to say "I'd drink it" or "I'd let my daughter drink it" but they're not going to are they?

If you believe in your product, move to Toowoomba, put your daughter into school there and start drinking!

It will be interesting to see how the local opponents of the Toowoomba proposal take the fight to those in favour of I-PU!

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Interesting political statistics

Here are some interesting numbers:

In the 2004 Qld State election, voters elected the State members for Toowoomba North and Toowoomba South by the following margins:

Toowoomba North

Kerry Shine (ALP) - 11,785 votes
National Party Candidate - 8,567 votes.

How many disgruntled Toowoomba North voters does it take to unseat the sitting member? Not that many, actually.

As a member of the ALP, Mr Shine would normally need to follow party (and Government) policy. That might put him between a rock and a hard place come the next State election.

Toowoomba South

Mike Horan (National Party) - 12,229 votes
ALP Candidate - 7,536 votes.

More disgruntled voters would be needed to unseat Mr Horan but it's not an impossible task.

(These numbers are all before the distribution of preferences.)

The sitting members of the Qld Parliament who represent Toowoomba should declare whether they are in favour of I-PU! or not. It's a simple question and not one which permits fence sitting. Put your comfortable parliamentary seat on the line gentlemen - are you for the Mayor's I-PU! proposal for Toowoomba or against it?

See - Qld Electoral Commission - for more 2004 State election details.

Best cartoon so far ...

The award for best cartoon to date in the I-PU! debate goes to the cartoonist from the Sydney Morning Herald for this effort:

See - Sewage to star in water plan, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 July 2005

Friday, September 02, 2005

Minister, may we have your guarantee on that?

The Qld Natural Resources Minister, Mr Robertson, is quoted in the Border Mail on 13 July 2005 as citing "its [I-PU!] use in Singapore and its upcoming introduction in Toowoomba as two examples where it would be used for drinking purposes with no adverse consequences".

See - Border Mail.

The paper said he was the Natural Resources Minister but now it seems he's the Health Minister. The Health Ministry is such a revolving door at the moment, it's hard to keep track.

See - Ministerial directory.

Is the Minister of Health prepared to give a written guarantee to the residents of Toowoomba that there will be no adverse consequences? Perhaps a long-term guarantee which his children or grandchildren can honour if it turns out he's wrong. Maybe a bank guarantee from the Minister for future potential medical costs?

Politicians are quick to claim things will be rosy but they'll be long gone if things go wrong.

Mr Robertson goes on to say "Recycled water can be made quite safe to drink through indirect potable recycling”. He apparently told this to a parliamentary estimates committee hearing. "The technology of reclaimed water treatment is quite straightforward using off-the-shelf technology."

So, in 2001, the Qld Government was relying on reports from the USA which state that the existing data on obvious adverse health effects [and that's just the obvious ones!] is sparse and of a limited nature. And in 2005, suddenly I-PU! is quite safe to drink?

Sorry, but somehow I am unable to make the same leap of faith that the Minister can. Has he somehow come up with the results of long-term studies which weren't around in 2001? Was the State Government wrong in 2001? Why the backflip Minister?

We think we might take that bank guarantee now, thanks.

and the NSW Government's view?

Goulburn in NSW is another starter for indirect potable use of recycled water (why don't we just call it I-PU!).

The NSW Government seems to be less forward in committing to the use of I-PU! in Goulburn particularly when Sydney isn't going for I-PU!, instead preferring a desalination plant.

In an article in the Goulburn Post on 29 August, the Minister for Police and Utilities, Mr Scully, is quoted as saying "[w]e have not come to a definitive view on this subject for we would have to be satisfied on all health and environmental grounds". He went on to say "[w]e need to ensure the recycling of sewage into drinking water meets all health criteria and the fact that Goulburn Mulwaree Council is even considering the issue shows how desperate things are in the city".

See - Goulburn Post - 29 August 2005.

So the NSW Government hasn't made its mind up and regards the use of I-PU! as something you choose when you're desperate. Interesting.

The Qld Premier, Mr Beattie, was quoted on ABC News on 31 August 2005 as saying "many of the concerns that exist today relate to prejudices rather than safety and health issues and we need to change people's minds about those things".

See - Beattie comments.

So has Premier Beattie made up his mind already, even before finalising the Guidelines for the Safe Use of Recycled Water?

Maybe the more cautious view of the NSW Government is the better approach.

What's the Qld Government's view?

The Water Futures Toowoomba website states that "[t]he Project has the support of the Queensland State Government".

See - Toowoomba Water Futures website.

But what has the Qld Government said in the past?

The Queensland Water Recycling Strategy, October 2001 states the following:

"The National Research Council of the USA (NRC) has investigated the viability of this type of indirect potable use [surface water storage of treated effluent] (National Research Council 1998). While it identified no obvious adverse health effects, it observed that the existing data was sparse and of a limited nature." (Page 23)

"The option of indirect potable use through the dilution and storage of highly treated effluent is not on the agenda of the Queensland Government. The above overseas trends should however be noted and monitored, especially with regard to the extent to which public and environmental health is safeguarded, and the community is
fully aware and its concerns are addressed." (Page 23)

"As new technologies allow further applications that are safe for people and the environment, the strategy will be updated. But change will always reflect community views." (Forward)

See - Qld Government comments.

The Queensland Government Public Consultation Draft - Queensland Guidelines for the Safe Use of Recycled Water state:

"If recycled water from a STP [sewerage treatment plant] is used for this purpose [indirect potable use] it should only take place after careful, thorough, project-specific assessment has taken place that includes contaminant monitoring, health and safety testing, and system reliability evaluation. This should include a health impact assessment conducted in accordance with the Queensland Health Department's Health Impact Assessment Framework as well as preparation of a Recycled Water Safety Plan incorporating health risk assessment."
(Page 65)

"Direct ingestion of recycled water has the greatest risk of causing disease, as it is capable of delivering the largest dose." (Page 30) [Note: the Toowoomba proposal is for indirect potable use.]

"The Queensland Government supports a consistent national approach to water recycling in Australia." (Page 6)

See - Qld government - safe use of recycled water.


So the Qld Government quotes the National Research Council of the USA finding that the existing data is sparse and of a limited nature.

The Government says that the option of indirect potable use of recycled water is not on the agenda (as at 2001) but it will monitor overseas trends provided "the community is fully aware and its concerns are addressed" and any "change will always reflect community views".

Now the Qld Government supports the Toowoomba project?

Has the community been made fully aware? Have its concerns been addressed? Will change reflect community views or will change be forced down Toowoomba residents' throats?

Where are the health impact assessment and the recycled water safety plan?

Why are decisions being made before the Qld Government's Guidelines for the Safe Use of Recycled Water are even finalised?

This issue is starting to raise a lot of questions ...

Is it safe or is it too soon to tell ...

New Report - Issues encountered in advancing Australia's water recycling schemes

There's an interesting report written by the 2005 Australian Parliamentary Fellow, Dr Sophia Dimitriadis.

Dated 16 August 2005 (so it's hot off the press!), Dr Dimitriadis raises some interesting questions about the current knowledge of the long-term effects of ingesting recycled water.

Here are some quotes from the report:

"Australia takes the position of using the best source of water possible and using recycling to free up drinking water in preference to directly replenishing supplies. Reasons for this approach include the unknown long-term outcomes from ingesting recycled water and the expense involved in programs that monitor the quality of treatment to avoid the possibility of adverse effects." (Page 26)

"At present, experts are rarely able to agree on risk levels. When technical experts cannot agree, it is unlikely that the general public will have confidence in the results. Therefore more research is required about the way in which contaminants operate." (Page 26-27)

"Investment in scientific research is needed - particularly in relation to how contaminants and pathogens can be inactivated, improving treatment plant and pipe system cleaning operations, and improving efficiencies." (Page 36)

This is interesting. The Mayor is telling Toowoomba that recycled water is safe and is bringing in experts to say the same thing and yet here is a report for the Federal Government that clearly states that it's too soon to know the long term effects of drinking recycled water and more scientific research is required.

You can find the research brief here - Parliamentary Brief.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Recycled water - a balanced debate?

So Toowoomba is to be the first city in Australia to have chewy water! Unless Goulburn beats them to it.

With the current drought around Toowoomba and water restrictions now up to level 4, it's no wonder the Toowoomba City Council has been scratching its head and wondering how to ensure that the city's residents aren't sucking on empty pipes in two years time.

But is the use of recycled water for the city's residents the answer? The Mayor, Di Thorley seems to think so. Should Toowoomba residents be the laboratory rats for the rest of the country? Maybe if there are side effects, they'll close off the city and put it all down to a bad experiment!

The purpose of the 4350water blog is to present some of the information currently circulating about Toowoomba's proposed use of recycled water for indirect potable use (i.e. for drinking). 4350water blog won't say that drinking recycled water will make you grow two heads but it also won't say that it's perfectly safe (unless irrefutable long-term studies are found which show this). There will also be some humour - hope that you return to read the updates.

As they say, on with the show ...

Copyright notice etc ...

The material provided on the 4350water blogsite is copyright protected and may be used for your personal reference only.

Subject to the paragraphs below, the material may not be used, copied, reproduced, published, stored, altered or transmitted in any form or by any means.

Certain content on this blogsite (news articles and photos) is the property of third parties and is copyright protected.

Other blogs may link to articles on this blog or use extracts on their blogs. Please attribute links or extracts to "4350water blog (2005-2020)".  A similar citation should be used for academic works.

4350water blog is able to track certain details of visitors to the 4350water blog and related blogs. These details are available for a short period and are not retained.