The press report the Council will wish was never written ...

From today's The Australian - putting the ball firmly back in the Council's court:

Recycling receives a spray

Plans to recycle water have divided Toowoomba, Margo Reynolds reports

TENSIONS are running high in Toowoomba over proposals on water-recycling by Mayor Di Thorley that could see treated sewage included in the city's drinking water.

The plan, thought to be an Australian first, has drawn vociferous opposition from the region's commercial and industry groups, on the grounds that it could ruin the economy of the area and that alternative water is available.

The recycling plan has been labelled a marketing nightmare, particularly for any business related to food.

The council says it already tests for about 140 chemicals in the drinking water and that government bodies will assist in many more tests for the recycled water.

Mayor Thorley said the project would be a unique demonstration for the rest of Australia to follow.

A decision is expected within weeks on the proposal, made last June to the National Water Commission, for the $70 million project.

The Beattie Government has already pledged $24 million to the project, should it win community approval and proceed.

Opponents claim that no tests are available to detect many of the 100,000 known contaminants of water, including prescription drugs. They also claim there are no studies of the long-term health effects of ingesting recycled water.

The southwest Queensland branch of Commerce Queensland, which claims to represent more than 8000 businesses in Toowoomba and the southwest region, has joined the list of opponents.

Regional chairman Ken Murphy said the perception of recycled sewage had turned people off the Toowoomba area and its products.

Mr Murphy said any business related to food, particularly those in the export market, had reported that recycled water use could jeopardise business. This included the meat industry, an important economic player in the region.

While there is little opposition to recycled water in some industries, and for parks and gardens, there is great opposition to its domestic use, especially for drinking.

A petition organised by Citizens Against Drinking Sewage has about 10,000 signatures on it, while a local council area, Jondaryan shire, held a poll and found that 80 per cent of the population was against the proposal.

A petition in favour of the proposal has been circulated by staff of the University of Southern Queensland, but it is not backed by the university.

Two land developers, Clive Berghofer and Snow Manners, back Mr Murphy's claims that the proposal already has had a detrimental economic impact.

They claim that health issues and costings of alternatives have not been adequately addressed, and that alternatives dismissed by the council should be costed by an independent body.

A former Toowoomba mayor, Mr Berghofer said: "I built the last dam in Australia 20 years ago, Cressbrook Dam.

"To use toilet water for drinking just doesn't make sense.

"Why take the risk?

"There's no point in exposing people to the risk of an accident, equipment failure or human error when there are other sources of water."

The scientific community is divided on the safety of the issue, but generally agrees that it is the drink of last resort.

A 2005 report to the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council by Sophia Dimitriadis raised concerns about "unknown long-term outcomes from ingesting recycled water".

She concluded that it was important not to put public health at risk: "At present, experts are rarely able to agree on risk levels."

Dr Dimitriadis, said only two cities practised potable-water recycling: Windhoek, in Namibia; and Singapore.

Singapore puts 2 per cent of recycled sewage into drinking water, compared with Toowoomba's proposed 25 per cent.

Unlike Toowoomba's proposal, it does not allow industrial waste with chemicals or any hospital waste into the recycling plant.

The Environmental and Heritage Protection Council, responsible for developing guidelines for water reuse, has said: "In assessing chemical risk for reclaimed water, it is important to take into account emerging chemicals, for which there is little or insufficient toxicological information."

Colin Creighton, director of Water for a Healthy Country, one of the CSIRO's National Research Flagships, said keeping up with new pharmaceuticals was a challenge in water reuse.

"The new abortion drug RU486 is an example," he said.

"A method would have to be devised to test for it, if it was established that it was being used in Toowoomba."

The University of NSW's Greg Leslie worked on the Singapore project and endorses the Toowoomba recycling plan.

Dr Leslie is a consultant for the engineering firm CH2M Hill, which was engaged by the Toowoomba council for its recycling proposal.

"The water will be perfectly safe to drink, it will be six-star quality," he said.

Toowoomba has traditionally relied on the agriculture, being the centre for the rich Darling Downs.

It provides water to more than 135,000 people in the greater area.

Dam levels are down to below 27 per cent and, without better rains, the city could run out of water within 18 months.

New bores are about to be drilled under a $1.3 million grant from the Queensland Government.

In its proposal for federal funding, the council claims it will lead the nation as a unique demonstration project for Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast to follow.

It says areas adjoining Toowoomba are experiencing growth rates almost three times the state average.

Other water options include water available from coal-seam gas projects on the Darling Downs and Western Downs, where agreements to supply the water for the domestic supply for Chinchilla and Dalby are already in place.

Downs farmers have offered the town clean bore water in exchange for recycled water for their crops.

Other parties have suggested the construction of an overshot weir on Gowrie Creek, collecting storm water for water harvesting to Cooby Dam and allowing for environmental flows, or even the construction of another dam.

Toowoomba's recycling proposal relies heavily on an agreement with nearby coal company, New Acland Coal, to take residue from the recycling process for coal wash. But this appears a short-term solution, as this coal operation will operate for only about the next 15 years and the recycling plan will only come into production about 2012.

After this, the extra cost of getting rid of the toxic residue from the recycling process will be considerable and the solutions not always environmentally friendly.

One option put to the Toowoomba council, costed at an extra $70 million, is for 600ha of evaporation ponds for the waste, a cocktail of chemicals and salt.

Other options are to pipe the waste directly to the ocean at a cost of $26 million, or dispose of it by mechanical evaporation for an extra $26 million.

The final option is to have another reverse osmosis plant to treat the residue and 68ha of evaporation ponds for a total cost of $14 million.

However, the report states that though this last method is the cheapest alternative, "this method has significant unknowns".

The residue would have to be treated with chemicals to reduce problems with the osmosis membrane treatment, which was sensitive and prone to breakdowns if not maintained properly.

See - Recycling receives a spray.