The proposed Referendum question ...

At the Council meeting on 21 April 2006, Council voted 6-3 to approve the following as the Referendum question on recycled sewage for drinking in Toowoomba:

Do you support the addition of purified recycled water to Toowoomba's water supply via Cooby dam as proposed by Water Futures Toowoomba?

Councillors voting in favour of this resolution were:

- Mayor Thorley
- Deputy Mayor Ramia (see conflict of interest comments)
- Councillor Englart
- Councillor Albion
- Councillor Alroe
- Councillor Schneider

This group seems to have become known to the community as the "Sewer Water 6".

The dissenting Councillors (Beer, Barron and Shelton) proposed the following alternative question which they regarded as more accurately describing what Toowoomba City Council is trying to achieve:

Are you in favour of recycling wastewater from the Wetalla Water Reclamation Plan for use in Toowoomba’s drinking supplies?

Some of the comments on the question passed by Council:

Councillor Shelton:

“The wording of the question was not discussed with Councillors Beer, Barron or me before Friday’s meeting."

“I am shocked that such a misleading and deceitful question will be put to the people of Toowoomba.”

“I was further shocked when Council voted to spend $460,000 on a mass media marketing campaign, giving just $5000 to the no campaign to write 1000 words."

“Council has already spent tens of thousands of dollars with multi-national company and recycling plant builders CH2M Hill trying to convince people that recycling sewage water for drinking is routine and safe. This whole process has become a sick joke.”

Cr Shelton said there was only one advanced water treatment plant like the one proposed for Toowoomba in the world. That is the CH2M Hill-built Singapore plant where 1pc of the island nation’s water comes from recycled sewage. Toowoomba is proposing a ratio of 25pc, which according to CH2M Hill is high by world standards. (Councillor Shelton blog)

Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce:

The Chamber of Commerce argues it's not truthful enough and doesn't make clear whether the condition of holding the water for five years will be followed.

"Firstly, purified is pure and to make that statement without any corroborating evidence, without being able to support it, is very misleading."

The Chamber also believes the wording could open the Toowoomba City Council to a legal challenge down the track if the yes vote is successful. (WIN News - 2 May 2006)

CADS:

"It's okay to vote No, no matter what the question is". (The Chronicle - 25 April 2006)