Water Futures document shows California, Singapore and Denver not testing for pesticides (updated) ...
Update:
The Council has rejigged the figures in its comparison. It has added minimal pesticide levels for the untreated Cooby Dam Water, however, for water tested in Orange County California, Singapore and Denver, the columns showing the levels of pesticides are still mainly blank - indicating no test results.
Original blog comment:
On 6 January 2006, the Toowoomba City Council updated its comparison between Advanced Treatment Plant (AWT) water and Cooby Dam water.
Using data (apparently) not previously available, this updated document compares Cooby Dam raw water quality (before treatment at Mt Kynoch Water Treatment Plant) with test results from a number of potable reuse projects.
This document is revealing for what it doesn't include. If you look at page 3 of the document, it shows pesticide levels in the water.
In the raw Cooby Dam (pre-treatment), it shows that all the listed chemicals are not detected. However, for water tested in Orange County California, Singapore and Denver, the columns showing the levels of pesticides are mainly blank.
This indicates that there was no testing for these pesticides.
One of the main concerns with the recycled sewage proposal is that there are over 87,000 chemicals in existence that could be in the recycled water. If the results from Orange County California, Singapore and Denver indicate that they are not testing for most of the chemicals listed (without considering all the others), how confident are we that Toowoomba's water would be free of residual chemicals.
The only thing the Council's updated document seems to show is the chemicals for which the water is not tested. Will Toowoomba follow their example?
See - A water comparison.
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 7:04 PM
16 Comments:
This latest document from the Council is such crap.
What they are hoping people panic about is the level of faecal coliform in the untreated Cooby Dam water compared to the water from the other cities.
A true comparison would show the post-treated Cooby Dam water levels for faecal coliform. But that wouldn't help the Council's argument would it?
When is the Council going to realise that you can't keep Toowoomba residents in the dark and keep feeding them bullshit?
2:30 PM, January 09, 2006
This council is not fit to run this city and all they are doing is looking for scapegoats to cover up there own shortcomings, mismanagement and fanatical idealisms. Why on earth would a city the size of Toowoomba in a region which has an average annual rainfall of over 900mm, three dams and numerous bores need to recycle effluent into drinking water anyway? There has to be something sinister in that and who on earth would want to put there faith in a council that has done nothing good for this city? For years this council has wasted water with overwatering of parks and gardens, washing down city streets and allowing residents to use sprinklers all day and all of a sudden there has been a dry period, our dams are low and they want to make us drink recycled effluent. I for one will be pursuing this matter all the way to the high courts if I have to.
A simple solution would be for all of them to resign and allow some people in who can fix there blunders without harming this cities image and economic growth with something that is a health risk, distasteful, socially degrading and what most Australians do not want.
3:16 PM, January 09, 2006
This is exactly why people object to how the Council has approach this issue - everything is calculated to mislead the public. Bring on the next election.
3:17 PM, January 09, 2006
I have looked at the Council document, and it doesn't claim to do anything but present some freely available data, and include the Cooby dam water information for comparison. It shows just what it claims to show - that the purified water is much cleaner than Cooby Dam water. As for showing the post treated dam water results, of course they would be much better - isn't that why the Council treates our drinking water after all? - to remove the crap in the dam water. Seems like not all the crap is in the water!
8:35 AM, January 11, 2006
Ouch!
12:24 PM, January 11, 2006
Quite simply, the use of recycled sewage for drinking should be a last resort.
The recently released Qld Water Recycling Guidelines emphasise this - "drinking water should always be derived from the best available source of water".
There are other options that can and are being considered.
Why is it that disagreement with the Council's proposal is labelled as "fanatical idealism"?
Isn't it just democracy at work?
12:49 PM, January 11, 2006
There are none so blind ...
Quote: "As I see it, you have a Council discussing the issue of this city's future with transparency and in an informed and considered manner."
A few comments regarding the Toowoomba City Council acting with transparency and in an informed and considered manner:
"The longer it goes without answers the more it raises your concerns." (Councillor Shelton, Toowoomba Chronicle, 8 December 2005)
"For me, I don't believe I've signed off on it." (Councillor Barron, Toowoomba Chronicle, 20 October 2005)
"All the way along, all this stuff has been kept too hush-hush." (Councillor Beer, Toowoomba Chronicle, 20 October 2005)
"It hasn't been transparent like normal projects council does ... it hasn't had the reporting as an agenda item to council, we're still to see written reports, and the only decision made is to apply to the National Water Commission. It doesn't mean we've signed off on it - we all need to know more." (Councillor Shelton, Toowoomba Chronicle, 15 December 2005)
In a written response to questions raised by Councillor Shelton, the Council admitted "that Disneyland wasn't drinking recycled water. Councillors' documentation on the project included colour pictures of Disneyland under the heading "Who else has planned potable reuse?" (Toowoomba Chronicle, 15 December 2005).
"I'm disappointed we were given the pictures and led to believe something which doesn't appear to be the case." (Councillor Shelton, Toowoomba Chronicle, 15 December 2005).
No, this Council is fit to run the city of Toowoomba.
12:58 PM, January 11, 2006
"Isn't it just democracy at work?"
I don't think they're teaching that at St Mary's.
1:18 PM, January 11, 2006
pure genius
This council put restrictions on high-rise development on the range after several hundred people protested. Several thousands have protested against drinking recycled effluent and yet they take no notice. They could install the dual pipeline sysytem and save the same amount of water whithout displeasing the community and at the same time creating extra jobs and saving the image of this city.
The fact that they are going ahead with this scheme unaltered after such a large community protest is alone itself enough reason to deem them unfit to govern.
As for your comment about rainfall not staying here well that is exactly the reason why we build dams, to capture that runoff or haven't you figured that out yet. The dams are were we get our water from, but more then that they are are fantastic recreational areas, they sustain fauna through drought times and are a haven for all types of wildlife. Just picture where we would be if the last mayor had decided to recycle instead of creating a new dam, would you say that we would have had enough water to survive this dry period?
We would have been long out of any water let alone water to recycle.
The fact that the citizens of this city use less water then there coastal counterparts demands that they be treated with respect , not contempt.
Caring about this city is one thing but the time has come when they should start caring about the people in the city, stop using money as an excuse not to look at the alternatives. The current TCC is acting liking a dictatorship with dollar signs tattoed into there foreheads and are putting at risk the very essence of Australian democracy.
4:09 PM, January 11, 2006
Given that Gowrie Creek the creek that TCC dumps its current treated effluent water into eventually ends up in the Murray-Darling-Condamine River system or the Great Artesian Basin via seepage and is used by irrgators means that the water is not being wasted unlike coastal cities which currently dump there treated effluent into the ocean where it does no good at all.
I do believe coastal cities which I believe hold 95% of Australias Population should be made to clean there act up before a city like Toowoomba is made to drink recycled effluent.
I cannot believe anyone could possibly support this project given the current public outrage from the citizens of Toowoomba and the fact that this project does not stack up in the long-term.
In reality it would only suffice if Toowoombas poulation remained the same in future years which somehow I don't believe it will.
If Toowomba were allowed to supplement its water supply from Wivenhoe Dam or a new dam east of the divide then more of this water would be put to a better use then it would be by being allowed to flow into the ocean.
Augmenting water supplies west of the Great Divide by use of treatment does not add to the amount of water in that region unless the original source comes from somewhere else rather then that area.
Cressbrook and Perserverance catchments would otherwise flow into the ocean if not used by Toowoomba and I cannot see why more water from coastal catchments cannot be used where it is needed the most - west of the divide were rainfall is much lower - rather then flowing into the ocean via coastal rivers and streams and even more so during floods.
Us residents here in Toowoomba are sick and tired of politicions going for the cheapest and dirtiest solution when there are other more long-term viable environmentally friendly options which obviously have to cost more of course.
Stop selling Toowoomba short and have a good long thought about what I have stated.
4:14 PM, January 11, 2006
You know what? I completely agree.
I have no problem with a combination of water sources being used for different purposes - with the cleanest water being used for drinking.
Recycled sewage for drinking should only be used as a last resort (as it is elsewhere in the world). Where there are other water sources, we should look to them first.
Why pour potable water on crops just outside Toowoomba and make people drink recycled sewage? It just doesn't make sense.
My principal objection is the manner in which the Council continues to deal with this issue. It fails to listen to the concerns of the community which elected it.
The Council has failed to tell the community it was planning to spend $3 million of its money building a visitors centre which, in the Council's own words, is to be used to show off recycled water to visitors from interstate and overseas. It is nothing more than an expensive advertising billboard for recycled water companies funded by taxpayers.
The Council also fails to understand that Toowoomba is part of a region through which water flows and that any solution needs to be part of a whole-of-region approach.
You're correct that the Mayor's controversial proposal isn't the cheapest solution. Expect significant cost blowouts - as at least some of the anticipated costs are, at best, guesses. The Council has no real idea of how much the recycled sewage proposal will cost.
That your group is now acknowledging the need for a combined solution and recognising the possibility that the recycled sewage purification process may not be failsafe is all positive stuff.
Thanks for your support -
I'll keep balancing the information flow.
2:16 PM, January 12, 2006
Failure to listen to the concerns of the community = ballot box failure at the next election!
2:26 PM, January 12, 2006
"This is securing a future water source forever!! Can't get much more long-term than that!!"
Sorry Jeff - the recycled water project will not drought-proof Toowoomba. The Council admits that, even with its scheme, there is still a need for people in Toowoomba to cut water use.
The Council's project is not a long-term solution to Toowoomba's water issues.
2:40 PM, January 12, 2006
The public has a right to know this information.
Good on you - keep up the good work - keep the Council honest!
2:51 PM, January 12, 2006
Just passing - thought I'd add my two cents worth.
The Council needs to fix the shambles of last year. It needs to sit down with community representatives and resolve this current impasse.
It may be useful for the Council and reps of the community to submit to mediation to try and resolve this issue.
The way the Council doesn't listen to the community is amazing. In the US, they'd be dragged into court.
4:10 PM, January 12, 2006
Why is making people aware of news reports around the world on this issue "unjustifiably alarmist".
Why not get matter before the people and let them decide.
There's enough censorship in this debate already without trying to impose more!
9:38 PM, January 12, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home