Minister Palaszczuk - why the inconsistency?

The Department of Natural Resources review of the different water options for Toowooomba is no detailed review.

The Report states that it "presents the results of a rapid review of appraisal work performed by the Toowoomba City Council on the suite of options that have emerged as supply alternatives to the Toowoomba Water Futures proposal".

Basic industry "rules of thumb" and local knowledge were applied.

So it's not a review of the options but a review of the Council's appraisal? Using rules of thumb?

Surely the taxpayers of Toowoomba deserve better than this.

Interestingly, the Report says:

"In a situation where Toowoomba faces challenges in accessing water from traditional sources, the proposal to incorporate indirect potable reuse as part of an overall strategy to meet overall water needs has obvious merit."

But in 2000, the Qld Government's Water Recycling Effects Scoping Study on the health risks of recycled sewage for drinking said "that insufficient studies have been conducted to allow significant conclusions to be drawn about the actual health risk posed by the recycling of wastewater."

See - Water Recycling Effects Scoping Study.

Can the Minister explain the inconsistency?

Can the Minister explain why his Department's view differs from that of Premier Beattie who recently said "[w]hat we're trying to do is free up drinking water for drinking"?

Read the NRM Report.