The seven barriers to Water Futures - Toowoomba ...

The Toowoomba City Council has released its latest Fact Sheet - the seven barriers of Water Futures - Toowoomba.

Here are seven real barriers to the project:

The Seven Barriers to Water Futures - Toowoomba

Barrier 1 - Public opposition

A substantial proportion of Toowoomba's residents (and registered voters) oppose the use of recycled water for drinking in Toowoomba. A petition against the project has gathered around 10,000 signatures.

Barrier 2 - Political opposition

Many politicians are against the Water Futures project in its current form. Politicians in favour of recycling water believe it should be the community's decision whether they wish to drink recycled sewage.

Barrier 3 - Councillor opposition

Several Toowoomba City Councillors oppose the Water Futures project and are critical of the Council's handling of the issue. Concerns have been raised at the way the Mayor has concealed project details from Councillors, including incorporating project costs in forward budget estimates.

Barrier 4 - Council's PR nightmare

Toowoomba City Council's media campaign has deceived the public. The Toowoomba Water Futures website seeks to justify the use of recycled sewage rather than present a balanced view of water source issues. The Council's promotional materials have misled the public - claiming that water discharged into Cooby Dam is pure when it is expected to contain at least 30mg/litre of dissolved material and claiming that places such as Disneyland drink recycled sewage.

Toowoomba City Council has also claimed that its project merely copies many other recycled water projects around the world. CH2M Hill state in the NWC application that "the recycled water would represent 26% of the total yield or 29% of the water supply to Mt Kynoch. This ratio of recycled water is high by international standards and will need detailed review and further studies.”

Barrier 5 - Continuing health concerns

Proponents of the recycled sewage project state that there are no health concerns with the Water Futures project. This is incorrect. The long-term effects of ingesting the chemicals which remain in the recycled sewage are unknown so is the potential effect of a combination of chemicals.

To date, the Council has not confirmed the testing regime for the over 87,000 chemicals in existence which may be in the recycled sewage.

Barrier 6 - Financial concerns

The costings in the NWC application are at best preliminary. Should Acland Coal not take the RO waste stream, Council will require 600 hectares near Oakey for evaporation ponds at an estimated ADDITIONAL cost of almost $70 million. The Council's preferred alternative - using only 68 hectares at an additional cost of $15 million - is regarded by CH2M Hill as having "significant unknowns" and being "water quality dependent".

Barrier 7 - Long-term concerns

Under the NWC application, Toowoomba residents will need to cut their water consumption by a further 20%. The project at best defers the need for a new water source - it will not drought-proof Toowoomba. Also, the projected life expectancy of the Acland Coal mine means that, even if the RO waste stream is provided to the mine, an alternative for dealing with the RO waste stream will be required upon mine closure, costing at least the $70 million estimated amount set out in the NWC application.

Something to think about ...