Why I disagree with the Mayor's proposal ...
1. There is a need for a consistent national approach to water recycling.
2. Water recycling projects should only proceed once all stakeholders are satisfied that all health issues have been dealt with.
3. The Toowoomba City Council and Mayor Thorley are trying to rush through a proposal to introduce recycled sewage for drinking in Toowoomba.
4. The Council is relying on the advice of consultants who are either related to one of the contractors or otherwise stand to gain financially from an increase in water recycling in Australia.
5. The Toowoomba City Council proposal has been prepared behind closed doors without any open debate among Councillors or the public. The Council is not even providing sufficient information to surrounding shires which buy water from Toowoomba.
6. A significant proportion of Toowoomba's residents are against the proposal. The Mayor denies this.
7. There are three recent reports prepared for the Federal government which state that further research is required on the effects of recycled water on humans. The "Sustainable Cities" Inquiry Report calls for an independent review of water options for major cities and regions.
8. There are an increasing number of State and Federal politicians against the use of recycled water for drinking.
9. The Qld Premier has stated that he does not support the use of recycled water for drinking in South-east Queensland.
10. If Toowoomba were to proceed with this proposal, it would be the only community in the region to do so - all the surrounding communities are looking at other alternatives.
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 3:56 PM
2 Comments:
Hi Jeff - must be school holidays ...
11:08 AM, November 28, 2005
Responding to these interesting comments:
1. Getting a consistent national response to the issue of Water Recycling is about as likely as the Wallabies returning home heroes. We still don't have a national approach to health or education, what makes you think areas with plenty of water to go round are going to be ready to accept the idea of reusing water. Water Futures gives Toowoomba a chance to lead the nation, although we are now finding support from Ballarat and Goulburn too.
Response:
It's not a question of asking areas with plenty of water to adopt water recycling (although it would be prudent for them to adopt prudent water saving measures). It is an issue of policy consistency at a Federal, State and Local Government level. At a Federal level, there are no national guidelines for drinking recycled water and a draft is not expected before 2006 at the earliest. Even the Qld Guidelines for Recycled Water are not yet finalised.
Goulburn Mulwaree Council actually submitted its NWC application at the same time as Toowoomba. Far from supporting Toowoomba, the Mayor recently criticized Toowoomba City Council for its approach to recycled water and claimed that their recycled water system will be superior to that planned for Toowoomba (Toowoomba Chronicle 19 November 2005).
2. This comment reflects the lack of urgency that seems to be endemic among Toowoomba locals. We really have no time to lose on this matter. All stakeholders would necessarily equate to all those who will drink Toowoomba's water and getting approval from each individual defies logic. This is especially so given that health experts throughout our region and overseas have pronounced the water recycling technology to be safe. Just last week yet another expert, La Trobe University chemistry lecturer Dr Mike Angove said the treated sewage posed no real threat to a drinker's health.
Response:
Those in favour of the Mayor's proposal often fall back on the so-called "desperate need" argument - the recycled water proposal must be introduced "as soon as possible". One of the interesting rumours currently circulating Toowoomba is that the city will run out of water by Christmas. This does not seem likely.
Involving stakeholders in the process does not mean 100% sign-off, however, there are certainly neighbouring Shire Councils who would like greater involvement in this process.
For every expert in favour of drinking water, there's another who's more cautious.
3. If it seems as though Council is trying to rush through a decision to do something about Toowoomba's water shortage, good! We don't have time to waste! The fact remains the entire subject and all other water supply options have received priority by Council because the issue is a pressing one. Rushing through a decision thoughtlessly and focussing efforts on an important matter so as to reach a solution at the soonest practical moment are two different things!
Response:
Again, the "desperate need" argument.
4. Given that Council has neither sought tenders nor engaged the services of a consultant at this stage, this comment is completely ridiculous! How are people to become "experts" if they have no experience working in the industry? It is called expertise because it involves a level of knowledge gained through familiarity in the area of interest.
Response:
The next stage of the Wetalla expansion program is already underway. It is being constructed by CHBM Water - a joint venture between CH2M Hill and Barclay Mowlem (with minor alliance partners). I imagine they will be interested in the final stage expansion should it proceed.
Dr Leslie from UNSW has been assisting the Council with its recycled water strategy, attending meetings and trying to convince people of its benefits. Dr Leslie is also a consultant to CH2M Hill, something the Council has continually hidden - including in Council minutes (e.g. minutes of 1-2 November 2005).
Council meeting minutes of 28 June 2005 show that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have been authorised to enter into "any memorandums of understanding necessary to underpin Council's [NWC] submission". It is unclear whether the Council has in fact signed any MOUs with these parties - this information certainly isn't available on the Toowoomba Water Futures website. However, it would not be surprising if they had.
There is a real concern when the Council is seeking advice from parties who stand to gain financially from a decision to proceed with the project.
5. There has been on-going public engagement since a submission was made to the National Water Commission back in June about the proposal to recycle water, a fact which is so easily ignored by recalcitrants. There have been two open forum public meetings and Council has been offering to come to public venues to conduct presentations detailing the proposal and explaining the process undertaking to reach this decision. For those who are interested in knowing more, there has been no end to the avenues to gain information. There have also been months and months of open debate in Council meetings about the proposal. To say any of this happened behind closed doors is simply untrue!
Response:
Why is that anyone opposed to the Mayor's view is labelled "recalcitrant"?
Quite simply, there has been little or no debate on this issue by the Council:
"All the way along, all this stuff has been kept too hush-hush." (Councillor Beer - Toowoomba Chronicle 20 October 2005).
"For me, I don't believe I've signed off on it." (Councillor Barron - Toowoomba Chronicle 20 October 2005).
Why did the Mayor walk out of the last Council meeting when issues were raised in relation to the recycled water project?
Why was it necessary to bury the proposed costings for the recycled water project in forward estimates presented to Council without explaining what they were for?
Why does the Council invoke the Closed Door Meetings provision (Section 463(1)(h)) of the Qld Local Government Act to hold water related discussions in private?
Why is it that the Toowoomba Water Futures website makes no references to the following reports prepared for the Federal Government, each of which raises concerns regarding recycled water:
- Report for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in June 2005
- Parliamentary Research Report in August 2005
- EPHC draft Guidelines in October 2005
Why is it that the Toowoomba Water Futures website makes no reference to the House of Representatives "Sustainable Cities" Inquiry Report (September 2005) which states (in Recommendation 13) that:
"the Committee recommends that the National Water Commission, in consultation with the States and Territories and the public, prepare an independent and transparent report on water options for each of the capital cities and major regional centres"?
Could it be that the Council doesn't want Toowoomba's residents to see both sides of the story?
6. Where are the facts for this? The 4500 valid signatures on a rigged petition? Come on!
Response:
Why is that a petition that doesn't support the Mayor's proposal must have been rigged?
Private polling shows that the percentage against recycling of water is similar to the percentage from the poll conducted by SBS - around 70%.
Interestingly, the Mayor has apparently been claiming in recent radio interviews that 70% of the population supports her proposal. She provides no evidence to support her claims.
If, as Mayor Thorley says, the overwhelming majority of people in Toowoomba are in favour of her proposal, why not put together a supporting petition and give it to Federal MP Macfarlane? It should be easy to get 40-50,000 signatures if there are only a few out-spoken people against the proposal.
7. No one is suggesting that on-going research is not needed. Indeed TCC have openly stated that 3-5 years of testing will be carried out before the water makes its way into our taps and drains.
Response:
The Council agreed rather reluctantly to do 3-5 years of testing when it became clear that they did not have Federal government support at that time for their proposal. The Council's initial plan involved no such testing. The Council has not stated which of the over 87,000 chemicals currently in existence it would be testing as part of this process.
8. There are also an increasing number in favour of it, such as Minister for National Resources and Mines, Henry Palaszczuk. This is his portfolio; do we not trust his judgement?
Response:
Here's an interesting quote:
"But [Qld] Natural Resources Minister Henry Palaszczuk and Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, who is Council of Mayors (SEQ) chairman, stopped short of backing recycled water for domestic consumption." (Australian Financial Review - 30 September 2005).
If Minister Palaszczuk was in favour of it, he missed a golden opportunity to express his view. He missed another good opportunity during the recent debate in State Parliament (on 9 and 10 November) - he made no statement at that time in support of using recycled water for drinking.
9. At no time has Premier Beattie said he does not support recycled water, quite the opposite, actually. And his offer of support has also come with a pledge to pay for a third of the project costs.
Response:
Well distorted. If you ask any politician whether they support the "recycling of water", they would most likely say yes. The question to ask is "do they support the recycling of water for drinking". Premier Beattie's comments on using recycled water for drinking in South East Qld are quite clear. Here's an example:
"What we're trying to do is free up drinking water for drinking." In relation to clean drinking water, Premier Beattie said: "Instead of using it in industry, instead of using it in on our garden, there is a clear strategy here and it makes good sense." (Courier Mail - 25 October 2005).
10. I don't see what difference it makes what other regions plan doing. As my mother used to say to me when I was a young'n, "if another child jumped off a cliff would you follow?" We have to make our own minds up, based on our individual needs and the imperatives that befall us in our unique circumstances.
Response:
Interesting. This is precisely the argument that the Council has used - they drink recycled water in Orange County California and Singapore so therefore Toowoomba should do it too. As one has come to expect from the Council and the Toowoomba Water Futures website, this is only half the story. Singapore has recently opened the largest desalination plant in Asia. It is also planning a new dam. Orange County is also looking at putting in a desalination plant. Other parts of California do not or will not use recycled water for drinking (e.g. Redwood City, San Francisco, Santa Cruz). But you don't see that on the Toowoomba Water Futures website.
It is sensible to adopt a whole-of-region approach for solving water issues. Under the Mayor's proposal, you would have a very odd situation - people living in Blue Mountain Heights would be drinking recycled water but those living at Highfields would not. At Table Top Estate, they will drink dam water but at the top of the Range it will be recycled water. There may be economic benefits of adopting various water strategies for the region, including recycled water for industry, gas water in certain areas and water sharing arrangements with irrigators.
Unless we have an independent review of the region's options, we may not be adopting the best approach.
As Councillor Shelton said:
"I think it will be hard to sell drinking recycled sewage when 27,000 megalitres of proven, safe yield of potable water is available within kilometres of the city. It doesn't make sense to put potable water on cotton and drink recycled effluent." (Courier Mail 13 October 2005)
If the recycled water project is the best thing for Toowoomba, why is the Mayor so afraid of having all the alternatives independently assessed? If it is as wonderful and as cost effective as she says, it should win by a country mile.
12:57 AM, November 29, 2005
<< Home