Toowoomba Water Futures - read the Flanagan report on why Water Futures would still work ...

Make up your own mind - See - Item 15.1 Council Committee meetings scheduled for this week.

Is it viable or not?

You'll have to ignore the fact that it could NEVER be built for $68 million.

Look at the estimated cost for building the Bundamba AWT plant - $368 million plus $56 million for pump stations and $396 million for transfer pipelines for a total current cost estimate of $897 million (which will blow out).

The RO waste stream for the Bundamba AWT plant will be poured into the Bremer River or piped to the Brisbane River. There is NO agreement with Acland Coal to take the Water Futures RO waste stream. Where would it go - evaporation ponds for $70 million plus added cost?

Remember, pumping recycled water into Cooby Dam in late 2007 was based on the assumption that the drought was over otherwise Cooby Dam would not be taken offline.

So, read Mr Flanagan's comments with that in mind ...

Climate change - another view ...

Excerpt from The Sunday Times:

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

11 February 2007

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adelie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

See - Climate change - another viewpoint.

Another day, another global warming explanation ...

Excerpt from Sydney Morning Herald:

Oceans cause global warming, says expert

28 April 2007

The United States' leading hurricane forecaster says that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.

William Gray, a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the US Atlantic coast, also said increasing levels of carbon dioxide will not produce more or stronger hurricanes.

He said that over the past 40 years the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the US Atlantic coast has declined even though carbon dioxide levels have risen.

Gray, speaking to a group of Republican state MPs, had harsh words for researchers and politicians who say man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

"They're blaming it all on humans, which is crazy," he said. "We're not the cause of it."

Gray, 77, has long criticised the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month, he described former US vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore "a gross alarmist" for making the Oscar-winning documentary that helped focus media attention on global warming.

Gray complained that politics and research into global warming have created "almost an industry" that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.

See - Oceans cause global warming.

Beattie's AWT's - where will the RO waste streams go ..

... into Moreton Bay for the Luggage Point and Gibson Island recycled water plants and into the Bremer River (or piped to the Brisbane River) for the Bundamba recycled water plant.

See - Beattie's RO waste streams - where they will flow.

Remember, if Mayor Thorley revives her Water Futures project by next March, she still has no firm commitment from Acland Coal to take the RO waste stream. Evaporation ponds for $70 million plus anyone ...

Leyburn and Killarney's water problems - just another Beattie fiction ...

... that is the question.

Excerpt from the Courier Mail:

Towns face drought death blow

26 April 2007

Two towns on the Darling Downs face evacuation because they have almost run out of water and cannot afford to indefinitely cart supplies.

Senior state bureaucrats have discussed the possibility of moving residents from Leyburn, population 200, and Killarney, home to 1500 people.

One of Leyburn's two bores has run dry and there are fears the other could follow.

It is costing $8000 a week to cart water to Killarney, which is at the source of the Murray Darling river system.

Water Services Association executive director Ross Young said the Government had the power to move people.
...

See - Water problems - fact or fiction?

No-one denies that SEQ is in water difficulties - worsened by the current drought and the lack of infrastructure planning by governments at ALL levels.

However, are these more scare tactics from the State government?

"We don't want to truck in water any more so we will forcibly remove you from the land. But if you drink recycled water, you can stay."

Some people say that evacuation has never been discussed at the local level as an option and that the shire as a whole will not run out of water.

The Council is in the media saying that Brisbane will run out of water first:

The Warwick Shire Council says suggestions that some towns on Queensland's Darling Downs will be evacuated because they are running out of water are nonsense.

See - ABC News - evacuation claims 'nonsense'.

Earlier Councillor Bellingham said the Warwick Shire council had never discussed evacuating towns.

"If we are not able to support Killarney I don't know what we're going to do with the rest of the shire," he said.

"Brisbane is going to run out of water before we're going to run out of water here.

"I want to assure the people of both towns there is no possibility, as far as I'm concerned, as far as any thought of evacuation. In my view that's just silly."

See - ABC News - Senior state bureaucrats' comments 'silly'.

So who's playing games with whom?

With Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser quickly hosing down suggestions of an evacuation, it looks like a variation on the usual Beattie-Bligh two-step - this time it's the senior bureaucrats-Fraser two-step to ratchet up the fear in the community ...

Beattie's WCRWP Canberra funding submission ...

Read the Beattie government's funding submission to Canberra here:

See - Beattie's 'milk bar' loan application.

Read why Minister Turnbull said:

"You could not get a $20,000 loan from a bank to fit out a milk bar based on the sort of non-detail, the lack of information we are getting from the Queensland Government."

There's not a lot of detail on the numbers ...

Toowoomba Water Futures - the millstone around ratepayers' necks ...

[Note - error corrected - Premier Beattie is building three not four recycled water plants as part of the SEQ project. Unfortunately for Mayor Thorley, this makes her costings for Water Futures look even more out of whack.]

The debate over Mayor Thorley's failed Water Futures campaign continues.

Some things just don't change ... at least until the Council elections next year. Some Councillors are still very keen on misleading the people in Toowoomba.

Regardless of the issue of reduced water flows, the fundamental point remains - Mayor Thorley and Engineering Head Flanagan did whatever they could to avoid an independent costing of the Water Futures recycling proposal and harped on about it costing only $68 million.

No independent costing was ever done.

Should the Mayor and Flanagan wish to put the Water Futures proposal back on the table before next March, they should be prepared to allow an independent costing of the project.

And what would that find?

Premier Beattie is building three recycled water plants and a pipeline for an estimated cost of $1.7 billion. This will no doubt blow out and is perhaps why PM Howard and Minister Turnbull are trying to pin Premier Beattie down on his costings.

So if Mayor Thorley can build a recycled water plant for $68 million, why can't Premier Beattie build three AWTs for $272 million plus some change for a pipeline. Then he wouldn't need all of PM Howard's $408 million. He could give some back.

Why?

Because it can't be done.

Premier Beattie is actually building three advanced water treatment (recycled water) plants plus a pipeline and they are costing upwards of $1.7 billion. Even if the pipeline is ballparked at $600 million (and that seems unlikely), that leaves $366 million per recycled water plant.

For Mayor Thorley and Mr Flanagan to maintain that they could build one in Toowoomba for $68 million is pure nonsense. And it is false and misleading to continue to claim so.

Perhaps we could build the plant and ask Thorley and Flanagan to reimburse Toowoomba for every cent the cost exceeds $68 million.

Now there's an offer they are unlikely to accept.

They're equally unlikely to accept an offer to independently cost the Water Futures project because they know that their claim that it is the cheapest option (which is their main claim why Toowoomba should proceed with it) is just plain wrong. They've been caught out - Premier Beattie's costings show they have misled Toowoomba residents - but they still refuse to admit it.

Excerpt from the Chronicle (annotated):

Debate on water still flows

25 April 2007

Would reduced water flows, prompted by Level 5 water restrictions and greywater re-use, have hindered the production of the Water Futures recycling plant?

That's if the July 31 vote had been Yes instead of the overwhelming No vote that sunk the project.

No, the contentious issue that divided the city hasn't died. [And won't die until after the 2008 Council elections.]

Snow Manners has reignited the debate after Michele Alroe claimed Toowoomba would have rated better in the Queensland Treasury Corporation review if the Advanced Water Treatment Plant had proceeded.

Toowoomba rated "moderate with a developing outlook". [Cr Alroe should be very glad the QTC didn't rate individual Councillor's performances!]

The review stated the ongoing drought and the uncertainty of a future water supply was a grave concern to the city's outlook.

Cr Alroe said had the vote supported the Water Futures project, then the outlook may have been deemed "positive". [Or maybe it wouldn't - but it doesn't really matter.]

"The water would have just been running into Cooby Dam by now - it's a tragedy the opportunity was missed," she said.

[The real tragedy for Toowoomba is that Mayor Thorley and her gaggle of Yes Councillors didn't resign immediately after the 31 July referendum vote. However, this is where Cr Alroe steps in to mislead Toowoomba residents. Even using the ambitious plans laid out in the NWC funding application - Section 1.0, page 15 - no recycled water was to flow into Cooby before August 2007 at the earliest with Cooby Dam then offline for testing - and this assumed that the current drought was over (actual words used in the NWC application). Remember, no recycled water would have flowed into homes and businesses before 2011-2012. Water Futures was no solution to the current drought - a fact Mr Flanagan finally admitted during the debate.]

Cr Manners said the region would have had a "white elephant" because there would not have been enough water to ensure the plant would operate properly.

The Yes supporters started to bristle. [Sore losers that they continue to be - get over it.]

Cr Alroe retorted that the plant would have been the "hero on the hill". [More likely the millstone around Toowoomba ratepayers' necks.]

Cr Manners' No case colleagues were reluctant to join the crossfire.

Mayor Dianne Thorley summoned Water Futures 'crusader' and Director of Engineering Services Kevin Flanagan to join the meeting [after wondering outloud "what have you done!"] and present actual statistics to the debate.

He proffered the reduced amount of water was not affecting the flow of solids through the sewerage system. [Rocket scientist stuff - anyone with a toilet in Toowoomba knows this!]

To satisfy Cr Manners, Mr Flanagan will provide a full briefing to the council committee meetings next week.

Beattie's SEQ AWT's ...

Read about Premier Beattie's recycled water (AWT) plants here:

- Bundamba AWT Plant

The Bundamba Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) Plant is a component of the Western Corridor Recycled Water (WCRW) Project.

Located near Ipswich, the AWT Plant is aimed at alleviating pressure on South East Queensland’s existing dams and waterways by providing an alternate water supply for end users in the region, initially Swanbank power station.

- Luggage Point AWT Plant

The Luggage Point AWT Plant will provide up to 102 megalitres per day of purified recycled water to the Western Corridor Recycled Water pipeline.

Construction on the AWT Plant will start in the first quarter of 2007 and the plant will be fully operational by December 2008.

The AWT Plant will be located to the south of the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant, bounded by Main Beach Road, Piped Road and private property which fronts onto Marine Road.

- Gibson Island AWT Plant

The Gibson Island advanced water treatment (AWT) Plant is a component of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project.

Located at Murrarie, east of Brisbane on the southern side of the Gateway Bridge, the AWT Plant is aimed at alleviating pressure on South East Queensland’s existing dams and waterways by providing an alternate water supply for industry, power generation and end users in the SEQ region.

The AWT Plant will provide 35 megalitres per day of purified recycled water and is unique in Australia due to the application of combined technologies involving micro-filtration and reverse osmosis membranes.

Water is flavour of the month ...

... for 'pump and dump' stock merchants.

This time a little known company with a $408 million deal and interests in Nevada USA:

"When This Nevada Water Deal "Goes Public" in the Coming Days, Investors Stand to Make 381%..."

See - Get in before it gets delisted.

PM Howard gives $408 million to Beattie with strings attached ...

He was always going to have to pony up the funds, particularly after KRudd promised to provide it if he managed to get into the Lodge later in the year.

Excerpt from PM interview:

Interview

24 April 2007

Joint Doorstop Interview

The Hon John Howard MP with The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP
Eagle Street Pier, Brisbane

Subject: Western Corridor Water Recycling Project; Toowoomba Bypass; Iraq; workplace reform
...

PRIME MINISTER:

The payment is made on the express understanding confirmed to me in writing by Mr Beattie on the 29th of January when he lodged his full application for the amount of $408 million that there will be no further requests made of the Commonwealth by the Queensland Government in relation to this project.

As I indicated on radio this morning, we have been in lengthy discussion with the Queensland Government, that is particularly Mr Turnbull, seeking further information and what we've decided is that we will announce our commitment to the project but require the full publication of financial details and information relating to the project by the Queensland Government within the next 30 days as a condition of the grants by the Commonwealth.

The other condition that we attach to the payment is that the interests of farmers in the Lockyer Valley who were responsible for I guess the original initiation of this project, that they're interests and needs should be properly accommodated
...

PRIME MINISTER:

Well we think the best way to hurry them up is to make the commitment in principle and require them within 30 days to publish the financials.

If they don't provide that information, well they'll be the people who are torpedoing our provision of the extra money.

I mean we are interested in helping the people of south east Queensland and the best way to help them is to say right, we'll give the money to this project on condition that the Queensland Government make all the financial details available, in a transparent fashion, and make them available publicly.

And I'm asking Mr Beattie to do that and if he doesn't do so within 30 days, well he puts at risk a receipt of $408 million. I'm sure the financial details will be made available within the 30 days.
...


The Lockyer Valley farmers aren't figured into Beattie's recycled water equation at present.

Back to the books, Premier ...

PM Howard's views on recycled water ...

Just so it's clear next election exactly how PM Howard stands on drinking recycled water:

Doorstop Interview, Lowood Show Hall, Lowood
17 April 2007

JOURNALIST: Excuse me Prime Minister what's your position on recycling water....

PRIME MINISTER: My position on recycled water is, I favour it, I've favoured it for a long time and I'm happy to drink it, if anybody's got some for me I'll drink it.

JOURNALIST:..... getting to the farmers of the Brisbane Valley...

PRIME MINISTER: Well look, I am in favour of recycling across the board and I really believe that there's been some sort of old fashioned resistance to recycling water that owes, you know, has no basis in reason.

JOURNALIST: Do you think water's been mismanaged in Queensland?

PRIME MINISTER: Oh I think every state government in Australia has mismanaged city water and mismanaged water in provincial areas as well. I mean what has happened is that water agencies, instead of investing in infrastructure, have handed over their revenue to state governments and I think that's wrong. It's happened in Queensland, it's happened New South Wales and it's happened in Victoria.

JOURNALIST: If the farmers do not get this recycled water, how will it impact on food prices?

PRIME MINISTER: Recycled water and food prices? Well if you don't have water, food prices will go through the roof because the food will get very short.

In India recycling and purifying take on a different meaning ...

See - Teachers 'purify' students with cow urine.

Ramia - one of these days a big cistern weight will drop on you ...

Deputy Mayor Ramia is in today's Chronicle commenting on the use of cistern weights for single flush toilets.

Brings back memories of Councillor Alroe's wonderful recommendation in June 2006 to 'put a brick in the bowl'.

While on the subject of people who leave their brains in neutral, rock star Sheryl Crow adds some helpful comments to the global warming debate by telling us to only use one square of toilet paper on each trip to the loo. And this from someone who sang "All I wanna do is have some fun" ...

PM Howard's secret SEQ water plan ...

... to be revealed on Budget night together with funding for the second Range crossing.

Excerpt from the Courier Mail:

A second crossing of the Toowoomba Range – a project worth more than $700 million – has been earmarked for funding in next month's Federal Budget.

And senior Government sources say there will be a major announcement on water to benefit the state's rapidly growing southeast corner.

See - SEQ projects - it must be an election year.

Ten lies they tell you about recycled water ...

... a discussion:

Friday 27 April 2007 (at 7pm)

Capalaba Soccer and Recreation Club

(John Frederick Memorial Park)

Old Cleveland Road

Capalaba.

Bligh - water infrastructure report on hold while government plots asset heist ...

Report sits on QWC desk while Beattie and Bligh figure out the best way to slip the water infrastructure assets out of council hands and into their privatisation vehicle.

Excerpt from ABC News:

Bligh says water infrastructure findings still weeks away

23 April 2007

It could be another six weeks before the results of an audit into Council-owned water infrastructure is publicly released.

The State Government ordered the review last month to decide whether to completely take-over water from the Councils or appoint a single coordinating authority.

Deputy Premier Anna Bligh says the draft report is now with the Water Commission.

She says the Commission will use it to make recommendations to the Government and it will be made public when it is finalised.

"These are complex issues and we need to look at them and consider them very carefully," she said.

"We need to get it right, we won't get a second bite at this cherry, but that report will be released when we have made decisions in relation to it."

See - We're coming for your water assets.

4350water shower timer ...

Now in the side-bar.

For those in Brisbane, when it reaches 240 seconds, Premier Beattie wants you out of your shower ...

US consensus - there are chemical trace elements in recycled water ...

... but they are 'unlikely' to pose a risk.

Comments made at a recent forum in California, bound to get people on both sides of the recycled water debate in Australia talking.

In summary:

- there are 60-80,000 chemicals currently in existence in the US.

- chemicals are everywhere in the environment at low levels of concentration and the risk is unavoidable.

- there is greater exposure to chemicals in food and air.

- non-detection of chemicals does not equal safe or zero and safe does not equal non-detection.

- PPCPs may not cause an immediate disease, but they can lower human resistance to other infections or make humans more vulnerable to cancers.

- public perception does count. That means erring on the side of being careful when the harm of a substance is not known for certain.

(Note that this forum was generally dealing with the issue of recycled water for non-potable use.)

Imagine if the Toowoomba City Council had approach the recycled water issue on the basis that 'there are trace elements of chemicals in recycled water but we don't think they pose a risk - now let's really examine the issue', rather than the 'nothing gets through the membranes', 'it's done all over the world', 'there are no other options', 'you're all luddites' and 'if you don't like it you can buy bottled water' bull#$%!* everyone in Toowoomba had to put up with.

Excerpt from Bay City News Wire (annotated):

Santa Rosa: Forum discusses drugs, chemicals in recycled water

20 April 2007

There are trace elements of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other unregulated chemicals in recycled water but they are not likely to pose a risk to human health.

That was the consensus of a panel of experts who addressed the Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities on Thursday during a workshop session on the presence of the contaminants in recycled water.

The concern nationwide is that the presence of the PPCPs, pharmaceutical and personal care products, in wastewater causes endocrine disruptions in humans such as low sperm counts, premature puberty in girls, testicular cancer in young men and breast cancer in some women.

But a 2005 study concluded that no studies to date have indicated that association according to Dr. Shane Snyder, a research and development project manager with the Southern Nevada Water Authority who has helped conduct five national studies. [Note - these studies have never made their way to Toowoomba - perhaps they should.]

There are 60,000 to 80,000 chemicals currently in use in the United States and humans face exposure to chemicals in unused medicines that are flushed down toilets or those in shampoos and cosmetics that enter the water during washing.

That water is eventually treated and recycled and used for irrigation of food crops, landscape irrigation, including playgrounds, and recreational facilities, including swimming pools.

In Santa Rosa, 6,400 acres of farmland, vineyards, and public and private landscaping use recycle water. Eighty-five percent is for agricultural uses.

Santa Rosa pumps four billion gallons of wastewater a year to The Geysers, where it is used to generate electricity, but another one billion gallons of treated recycled water is released when water levels are high and recycling use is minimal into the Laguna de Santa Rosa, said Richard Dowd, chairman of the Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities.

"We are not allowed to recycle it for potable water,'' Down said.

Concern about PPCPs arose nationwide with the feminization of male fish in effluent dominated rivers. Fish feminization was observed in Boulder, Colo., the Potomac River in West Virginia, in the Las Vegas Wash and at multiple sites in Minnesota.

Studies indicate and the experts at the workshop Thursday said chemicals are everywhere in the environment at low levels of concentration and the risk is unavoidable. These include mercury in fish, dioxins in meat and dairy and pesticides in produce. Chemicals are also present in indoor dust.

Laura Kennedy, a risk analysis specialist with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants [a group which consults on recycled water systems], said the intakes of PPCPs in recycled water are less than the allowed intakes of regulated chemicals in drinking water and there is greater exposure to chemicals in food and air.

Non-detection of chemicals does not equal safe or zero and safe does not equal non-detection, Snyder said. Public perception must be considered and if endocrine disruptors are a human health issues, food will be the greatest contributor, Snyder said.

"Pharmaceuticals in water are not likely to pose human health risk," he said. And, quoting Albert Einstein, Snyder said, "'Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.'"

But public perception does count, said Brenda Adelman of the Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, and she said the "precautionary principle" should apply. That means erring on the side of being careful when the harm of a substance is not known for certain.

Adelman said the effects of PPCPs on aquatic life and their secondary impacts are not known.

She said PPCPs may not cause an immediate disease, but they can lower human resistance to other infections or make humans more vulnerable to cancers.

"Remember, when you eat fish, you are eating what they eat," Adelman said.

Dr. David Smith, manager of Santa Rosa's incremental recycled water program, said the Board of Public Utilities requested information about PPCPs in recycled water in 1996, held a study session on them two years ago and will do so in the future.

See - Bay City News Wire - Recycled water forum.

Drought breaking rains 'possible' ...

See - Drought breaking rains - we'll know soon.

Live Earth - how increasing greenhouse gas emissions will somehow save the planet ...

Read the article - here.

Kevin 'Wolfdene' Rudd's greatest problem redux ...

An interesting summary of 'glass jaw' Rudd's problems:

See - 'Next PM' Rudd knows he's in strife.

An excerpt:

Oakes read out remarks by Neil Breen, editor of Sydney's Sunday Telegraph, which this month broke the story of "Sunlies", or "Rudd's False Dawn".

The story was that Rudd agreed to a plan by Channel 7's cult Sunrise show to fly to Vietnam for an Anzac Day dawn service at Long Tan. Except it would not be a real dawn service but a fake, held an hour earlier to coincide with Sunrise's peak ratings.

According to Breen, Rudd "went bananas". He rang Breen to insist his office had nothing to do with any fake service. Rudd "just went crazy", Breen said. "The threats sort of mounted", and "it was the heaviest situation I've been in in my career".

Nor did Rudd stop there. He even rang the chairman of News Ltd, John Hartigan, and insisted the Sunday Telegraph story was wrong. He demanded corrections and reportedly made threats.

That kind of heavying and behind-the-scenes attempts to nobble an editor is something to try only when you are very, very sure you're right. When you stake your reputation on it.

Well, Rudd staked his and lost. Breen produced an email proving Rudd's office knew of the fake ceremony and Rudd had been booked to fly to it.

You may respond, so what? Rudd has since 'fessed up to his mistake, and, besides, offending an editor and his boss - especially a Murdoch boss - is a Labor leader's duty.

But Oakes and Rudd know he's stuffed up.

Clearly after blood, Oakes asked Rudd yesterday to explain his behaviour. And gave him a kick: "What are you going to do about your glass jaw?"
...

He has now little time to remake himself before the public starts to notice, too, and to wonder if this highly intelligent, ferociously hard-working man does have the glass jaw that will make him unpredictable in high office.

Original blog comment:

... his own staff - probably the greatest hurdle to any political ascendancy:

Example 1 (12 April 2007) -

Kevin Rudd is talking big about climate change but he was caught short while explaining why he still drives around his native Brisbane in a gas guzzler.

The Opposition Leader was on Melbourne radio yesterday spruiking his new rainwater tank and lamenting that a lack of sun exposure thwarted his efforts to install a solar water heater.
He then admitted to choosing as his government-supplied private vehicle a 4WD Ford Territory.

"As far as I am aware, you can't actually get hold of a hybrid car through the government purchase arrangement," he said. "That's my understanding anyway."

The Australian Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, phoned in to say she had a government-supplied hybrid.

Mr Rudd pledged immediately to look at a hybrid when it was time to hand the Ford in.

See - Rudd's green drive hits bump.


Example 2 (13 April 2007) -

The office of Kevin Rudd was warned more than two weeks ago that plans for a stage-managed pre-dawn service at Long Tan, Vietnam, in which the Labor leader was slated to take part, risked "seriously offending" veterans and others.

A series of emails obtained by the Herald also reveal Mr Rudd had booked flights and was confirmed to attend the event, which was scrapped only four days ago when it became public.

Last night Mr Rudd admitted his office had received the email which warned about the possibility of causing offence, but said it had not been brought to his attention.

"My staff have informed me that in their search of the documentary record on Easter Sunday, this email was overlooked. I have now counselled my staff on this matter," he said.

See - Rudd admits gaffe over TV dawn service in Vietnam.

Mr Rudd has previously denied newspaper reports that his office and Channel Seven's Sunrise program had discussed plans to stage a pre-dawn service to coincide with prime time TV slots in Australia.

Veterans groups attacked the reported plans, which were also denied by Sunrise.

Mr Rudd says his initial denial of knowledge about the plan was an oversight.

See - Rudd claims lies are an 'oversight'.


Example 3 (31 March 2007) -

Three hours later, about 1pm, [Lachlan] Harris [a Sydney lawyer who worked for two federal Labor frontbenchers, Robert McClelland and then Wayne Swan, before he joined Rudd's staff after Rudd gained the Labor leadership last December] phoned Walsh back in "the same feral, belligerent mood".

He went through a detailed time line of Rudd's recall after his father's death in February 1969. However, it was non-attributable, "on deep background only". And if the paper decided to publish, knowing what they were being told, "we will regard it is a deliberate malicious assault" on Rudd. If this happened, "we'll have 100 people ready to roll tomorrow morning to trash you and your paper".

"There were seven calls between him and his team, maybe only six, perhaps even eight, to try to have that story pulled. There was a bit of pressure to me, there was certainly pressure to KA to roll or she was [expletive] in Canberra, and all of this bullshit language. I think his minders were heavier to KA than they were to me. There is no doubt they did not want that story in the paper."

Kevin Rudd has a dangerously glass jaw.

See - The story Rudd tried to kill.

Is Canberra serious about the issue of water ...

Example: Chinchilla

- a town which is in need of water solutions
- a solution - coal seam gas water is proposed.
- a Federal government funding application is submitted.
- the proposal will effectively drought-proof the town
- the funding application is knocked back on the grounds that Dalby is already doing a coal seam gas water project.

While one of the NWC's roles is to fund innovative projects, it seems absurd to say that one town can have funding and another cannot because they propose a similar scheme.

If coal seam gas water is a solution to water issues in SW Qld, surely it makes sense for the NWC to fund the projects.

They can then say 'problem solved' for the region.

There are not many parts of Australia where a 'problem solved' tick could be given to the region so easily.

Excerpt from ABC News:

Chinchilla water plan to go ahead without federal funds

12 April 2007

The Chinchilla Shire Council says it will not abandon plans to use treated coal seam gas water even though an application for Federal Government funds has been rejected.

The council says the Australian Water Initiative has knocked back its application because a similar treatment plant is being built in Dalby.

Mayor Bill McCutcheon says they will be negotiating with the Queensland Government and water and mining companies to find a solution to their funding shortfall.

"Our council came down 100 per cent behind the project at our last council meeting and to progress it as fast and as rapidly as we can," he said.

"We've got to sort of revamp the whole project now insofar as this Australian Water Initiative funding falling through so it's got to be revamped, rescheduled and then we'll be working out what is required."

The council says it has enough water in the town's weir to continue to supply residents until August or September.

See - Chinchilla pushes ahead with coal seam gas water.

Murray-Darling - Armageddon or ratcheting up the pressure on Victoria ...

To sum up:

Howard says Victoria is vital to his Murray-Darling plans.

Turnbull says they're not and it can go ahead without them. Then, checks with Howard and, in an embarrassing u-turn, toes the party line.

Howard then tosses out a report to show the Murray-Darling water position is becoming critical and it's time to drain the wetlands.

Over to Victoria for the next move ...

Murray-Darling Basin Dry Inflow Contingency Planning - Overview Report 2007 ...

Read the report - here.

Friday's question of the day ...

... this one directed to the QWC readers.

Why is it that after repeated written and telephone requests, the QWC still can't provide the 10 year study on recycled water use that is referred to in the QWC taxpayer-funded recycled water ad campaign?

Perhaps the dog ate it ...

Toowoomba City Council makes veiled threat to neighbouring shires ...

... may not renew water sharing agreements in 2008.

In the Council Committee agenda for 17 and 18 April 2007, the following comments are made in relation to a proposed master planned community planned in Jondaryan Shire:

3.3 Water Issues (annotated)

The Water Agreement between Toowoomba City Council and neighbouring shires expires on 30 June 2008, and negotiations for renewal of this agreement are likely to commence in May.

The existing level of development and demand for water within and around Toowoomba presently exceeds the latest DNRW sustainable yield directions [still relying on the non-existent reports!].

Until such time as Toowoomba's water supply becomes secured (whether in the context of SEQ regional arrangements or otherwise [i.e.. If Mayor Thorley can somehow get her recycled water plant built by next March]), a note of caution might be expressed as Toowoomba might not be in a position to offer a limitless supply of water during negotiations for the next Water Agreement.

The thorn in Premier Beattie's recycled water plans ...

The apparently well funded opposition to Premier Beattie and their latest ad campaign.

See - b magazine advert.

Experts' dim view of green light bulb ...

Excerpt from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Experts' dim view of green light bulb

15 April 2007

The cover story of this month's edition of Silicon Chip magazine is a comprehensive bagging of the Federal Government's plan to replace incandescent light bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescents (CFLs).

As publisher Leo Simpson points out, most domestic lighting use is at night, which means it is "merely using the 'spinning reserve' of our base-loaded power stations.

"You could switch all the lights off ... and the base-load power stations would still be spinning away, using just as much coal," he says.

In a six-page analysis, Silicon Chip , the bible for electrical engineers, identifies drawbacks such as the fact that a CFL light bulb "takes about 10 to 15 minutes to achieve full brilliance"; doesn't last long when used for frequent short periods; can't be used with a dimmer switch; and can cause electrical and infra-red interference to the point where "CFLs can completely obliterate [radio] reception in rural areas" - and if you have a "CFL in the same room as your TV or hi-fi system, the infra-red remote control may not work at all".

Heed the geeks.

See - SMH - Dim view of green lights - see bottom of page.

Why recycled water is such a tough sell ...

... when even the proponents call it poo.

Earlier, Senator Heffernan as chairman gave tacit support to water recycling.

“Where I came from, for many, many years we drank Canberra’s poo and none of us grew a second head or third arm,” Senator Heffernan said.

See - Malloy storms dam inquiry.

Premier Beattie relies on missing hydrology reports in Traveston Dam submission ...

See page 86 of Beattie's submission to Canberra on the Traveston Dam:

"Since 2004 the yield of all the Toowoomba dams has been revised downwards and supply capacity was exceeded in 1998."

Perhaps in recognition of the difficulty of producing the missing hydrology reports, this comment in the submission is not referenced to any particular document.

Get the feeling they're just making it up as they go ...

Does global warming awareness signal the deathknell of the international traveller ...

Excerpt from Sydney Morning Herald:

Travel's change of plan

10 April 2007

Concern about the environment is going to change the way people travel - even whether they travel.

To the passionate traveller there's nothing more seductive than the prospect of getting on a plane. It doesn't really matter where you're going - it's all about experiencing and enjoying the planet.

However, taking responsibility for our own carbon emissions has become such a hot issue it can take the shine right off those travel plans. Rather than rushing off to a new destination we're expected to ask a lot of tricky questions first - and the answers may determine what kind of holidays we have in future. And where.

The first question is simply this: is it sustainable to regularly travel long distances, by plane or otherwise? If we want to care for the environment can we continue to holiday in the same way with a clear conscience?

"No," says Associate Professor Stephen Wearing from the school of leisure, sport and tourism at the University of Technology, Sydney.

"The real ecotourist stays at home," he says. "It's the postmodern dilemma, isn't it, because the amount of impact you have in just travelling to your destination is huge in terms of carbon emissions - and obviously the market's cottoned on to that because you've got the carbon emission extra fee payments for airline tickets.

See - Ecotourists to stay at home - permanently.

Beattie keeps Councils off balance ...

First it was the threat to take water infrastructure assets, now Beattie pushes on with Council amalgamation plans - now threatening to implement them before March next year.

See - Courier Mail - Councils face reform bombshell.

Is the game plan - hand over your water assets or I'll amalgamate you and half the Councillors will be out of a job ...

The Chaser's War on ... global warming ...

Download the 11 April program at - ABC Chaser's War on Everything.

The Global Warming Games start at 4 mins 40 secs ...

Have your say on Brisbane's water…

Give your response to questions such as:

1. Do you believe that it is safe to drink ‘recycled water’?

2. Do you believe that authorities can guarantee that recycled water won’t contain hormones and endocrine-disrupting compounds, infectious agents etc.?

See bmag's recycled water survey here - Have your say.

We'll drink to that - why Canberra doesn't need recycled water ...

Part 2 of the duelling opinion pieces in the Canberra Times.

In summary, there's no need to drink recycled water.

(No 5 year olds drinking recycled water in this one.)

Excerpt from the Canberra Times:

We'll drink to that: unlimited water for $150 a year

16 April 2007

Canberra could be free of water restrictions for the next 50 years or more for less than $3 a week per household and without having to drink recycled sewage.

The current water crisis in Canberra is not due to climate change. Nor is it due to drought. It is entirely due to deliberate ACT Government policy.

The ACT's dams were built to supply 450,000 people with no restrictions but the ACT Government ordered that our dams be emptied throughout the drought by way of very large environmental flows during recent years of lower-than-average rainfall.

Between 2000 and 2004, 109GL (112 years' supply) was emptied out of the dams, benefiting downstream users (who paid ACT water users nothing for the water released).

These outflows were continuing as late as November last year. A total of 20ML a day was being let out of Bendora Dam, enough to have supplied 29,000 ACT households (nearly a third of Canberra) on an annual basis.

It is simply not necessary for ACT families and their children to become guinea pigs in an experiment which would see sewage being directly recycled into drinking water. While in theory technology can be made to work, experience with technological disasters such as the Titanic's water-tight compartments or the space shuttle's tiles suggest caution is warranted.

Cautious people prefer their drinking water naturally recycled by solar evaporation and falling as rain into reservoirs on mountain streams. (This also uses a lot less energy and costs a lot less than Actew's plan to filter sewage, pump it upstream, pump it up again to Mt Stromlo and treat it again.) Cautious people are also concerned by the increased fire risk from dried-out trees and gardens.

The truth is that the Future Water Options project found that the ACT has enough water for a million people, even with the current high environmental flows ordered by the ACT Government.

After allowing for stormwater run-off and treated effluent, the ACT uses only some 4per cent of its estimated average annual water of 494GL. The ACT does not lack water. What the ACT lacks is sufficient water storage to supply Canberra's needs and keep topping up rivers throughout a long drought.

Once the ACT Government took the decision to start emptying the existing dams in the interests of river health or fish habitat in the lower Cotter River, it should have realised than the dams built to support 450,000 people would have trouble coping with 350,000.

It should have realised that its taxes and monopoly profits from water should be spent on extra storage if it wanted to keep emptying dams throughout drought.

Unfortunately, the ACT Government seems to care more about river or fish health and habitat than it does about the health of the human population and the environment of the garden city we used to live in. So it has preferred to continue emptying the dams as trees and gardens die.

Having manufactured a water shortage, it now demands that people pay huge sums for the privilege of drinking recycled sewage.

None of this is necessary, nor are the costs of water restrictions in time and damage to health, homes, trees and gardens.

The people of the ACT can have all the extra water they need for less than $150 per household a year.

If these statements come as a surprise to some readers, they can read the following for themselves on the Future Water Options pages on Actew's website.

The Large Tennent Option would create the ACT's largest dam with a volume of 159GL (billion litres) and increase the ACT's water storage by about 74 per cent.

A new large Tennent Dam would collect water from the large catchment of the Naas, Gudgenby and Orroral rivers. The catchment has high rainfall and run-off in the upper section but lower rainfall in the eastern sections.

When full, the large Tennent Dam would store the equivalent of 27 months of water use.

Because of the large storage volume, this option would be a reliable source of water in a long drought.

It is predicted that if the Large Tennent Option was added to the existing storages, there would be sufficient water to provide a reliable supply for the ACT region for the next 50 years or more.

The Large Tennent Option is estimated to cost $240 million. The cost includes $115million for the dam, $18 million for clearing, $27 million for new roads, $40 million for a new water-treatment plant and $40 million for the pipeline and other items, including environmental and catchment issues and planning approvals.

The cost to the average household ratepayer, assuming construction begins soon, would be $150 a year.

Dr Dwyer is a visiting fellow at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Economics and Government.

See - We'll drink to that: unlimited water for $150 a year.

Research guides way forward - why Canberra might consider recycled water ...

Part 1 of the duelling opinion pieces in the Canberra Times.

In summary, do it but be cautious - more research is required.

(This one also has the ubiquitous 5 year old drinking recycled water.)

Excerpt from the Canberra Times (annotated):

Research guides way forward

16 April 2007

As we all know, Australia is waking up to the variability in water supply across the continent and experiencing documentable climate change. The eastern seaboard is still in the grip of the worst drought in living memory. Water levels in dams over much of the country are at critically low levels.

Water is no longer taken for granted, but is now widely acknowledged as a precious resource that we need to manage.

The recycling of waste water is seriously being considered by most water utilities as one of several ways to increase their water resources and to provide a buffer against drought. Using water just once and then discarding it is now viewed as wasteful and unsustainable. Reusing water reduces the strain on our existing freshwater resources and is better for the environment.

Technology is now so advanced that waste water can be treated to a level that is better than the water coming out of our taps. But there are other options, so why recycle water? Why expose ourselves to the risks? Waste water has the advantage over other sources such as storm water in that it is available in plentiful amounts, irrespective of climatic conditions. It also has the advantage that it tends to be of a consistent quality, not necessarily a good quality, but consistent. This makes treatment easier than for a water of variable quality such as storm water. The treatment of waste water is less energy intensive than desalination as it contains about 35 times less salt than seawater.

There is a downside. Waste water can contain contaminants that could be harmful to our health. This can include all the wastes and contaminants discarded from our households, ranging from faecal matter containing bacteria and viruses through to medications excreted in our urine. Then there are the cleaning products and other chemicals used in households.

What are the real risks from these contaminants and how effective are the treatment processes? How sure are we that the water utilities can consistently provide us with a safe product? CSIRO, water utilities, universities and government departments have been undertaking research for a number of years to begin to predict the actual risk from many of these contaminants and understand the effectiveness of treatments to remove them from water. Research has also shown that conventional treatment barriers can effectively remove germs that cause illness. Similarly, the removal of heavy metals and nutrients are well documented.

A group of contaminants that has recently come to the forefront of public awareness is trace organics. These chemicals include the sex hormones oestrogen and testosterone as well as chemicals which mimic the activity of these hormones.

Other trace organics receiving attention are pharmaceuticals and personal-care products such as shampoo and body cleansers. Less is known about the presence of these chemicals in waste water and the effectiveness of treatment processes to remove them. These chemicals are usually present in such low concentrations that detection is very difficult. For other chemicals it has been difficult to distinguish them from the large number of other organic compounds, some of which are naturally found in tap water.

In other cases, such as newly developed medications, they have only been in use for the past few years and detection methods are yet to be developed. Conventional treatment removes many of these chemicals from waste water or reduces them to levels at the limit of detection. In fact, many researchers are now coming to the opinion that their very low concentrations in treated waste water do not pose a human health hazard.

In order to better understand the environmental risks of these compounds, research is being undertaken to assemble better data on the effect of these compounds on native animals in our water ways. The ability of advanced treatment systems to completely strip these trace organics from recycled water is also being closely examined to ensure that humans and the environment are protected. This is especially important as Australian governments and cities move toward the concept of treating recycled water for drinking purposes.

Research efforts to date have also led to the development of new guidelines for recycling water. The new Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling [note - not developed for potable reuse as yet] use an internationally accepted risk-management approach, and are currently being extended to address recycling for drinking water. The guidelines recommend that in the design of water reuse schemes there are a number of fail-safe barriers which ensure treatment effectiveness. This means that if one treatment barrier fails, another is able to cope. Control points which alert if a failure occurs are also required, and in many cases are able to shut down delivery immediately a failure is detected in the plant.

This then leads us to the ultimate question. Is it safe for Australians to drink recycled water?

The short answer is that with appropriate treatment and safeguards the water is as safe as our current water supplies.

Any researcher working on water recycling will admit there is much still to learn.

We do know already that the risks are very low, and are probably less than those associated with drinking water already flowing from our taps. Other places such as California, Belgium, Singapore and Namibia are already recycling water for drinking and despite extensive epidemiological studies no detrimental health impacts have been detected.

The Australian public can be reassured that government agencies, researchers from CSIRO and universities, and water utilities are not blindly leaping into recycling for drinking purposes but are taking measured, educated steps using sound research to guide developments and the next course of action.

And do researchers like me put our money where our mouth is? Indeed. I have drunk recycled water, and given it to my five year old, and felt perfectly confident in doing so.

Dr Toze is principal research scientist at CSIRO Land and Water.

See - Research guides way forward.

NEWater competition - bottled GABwater ...

With dam levels in southeast Queensland dwindling to just 20 per cent of capacity, the region's residents and businesses are today facing some of the toughest water restrictions in the country.

But while Level Five Restrictions have come into effect in the southeast, one shire in the state's southwest says it has so much water it wants to bottle it.

The Diamantina Shire, which includes the towns of Bedourie and Birdsville, is investigating the possibility of drawing water from the Great Artesian Basin to sell on the domestic market.

See - GABwater - SWQ to supply SEQ.

Beattie's grand Qld sale continues ...

Beattie sells Qld's Golden Casket lottery to Tattersall's for $530 million.

See - Another Beattie asset sell off.

What will he do with the proceeds ...

Victorian Libs plan recycled water demonstration town ...

Excerpt from the Age:

The Victorian Liberal Party is considering a dramatic change to its constitution that would give the party's political and administrative hierarchy the power to hand-pick "star" candidates for Parliament.

Other controversial resolutions due to be debated include calls to:

- Pump recycled water into the drinking supply of a "suitable regional city" as part of a demonstration program to "convert public opinion" on drinking treated waste waster.

See - Who's a lucky town then?

If they ever got into power, they would probably choose a Labor stronghold town for the experiment.

But will they ask the town's residents how they feel about it ...

Gold Coast City Council - are we Arthur or Martha ...

Confusion on the Gold Coast over water restrictions.

See - Gold Coast Bulletin - We won't go to water.

Tanks a cheaper solution ...

Excerpt from the Courier Mail:

Tanks a cheaper solution

16 April 2007

Expensive water infrastructure would not be needed in southeast Queensland for at least a decade if extra rainwater tanks were rolled out.

A new study has found controversial projects such as the Traveston Dam and desalination plants could be put on hold by rolling out rainwater tanks to 5 per cent of households each year in conjunction with other water saving measures.

The findings – to be released today by the Australian Conservation Foundation – will increase pressure on the State Government to rethink the controversial 180,000-megalitre dam.

See - Tanks a cheaper option.

Cartoon - Traveston and the Rudd family connection ...

See - New claim about Rudd's childhood.

Toowoomba City Council - not sure whether it's coming or going ...

Are we in SEQ or not? Who can tell! Certainly not the Toowoomba City Council. They're having an each way bet.

MEDIA RELEASE

12 April 2007

Confusion over water restrictions

In some cases Toowoomba is in South East Queensland, and sometimes it isn’t.

The recent Level 5 water restrictions announced by the Queensland Water Commission to apply to South East Queensland do not apply to Toowoomba.

The Queensland Water Commission restrictions apply to residents and businesses in Beaudesert, Caboolture, Esk, Gatton, Kilcoy, Laidley and Pine Rivers shire councils and Ipswich, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Redcliffe and Logan city councils.

Toowoomba City Council introduced its own level 5 water restrictions on September 26 2006. Toowoomba’s Level 5 restrictions are more stringent than those introduced by the Queensland Water Commission.

Toowoomba residents are not allowed to do any outside watering unless they have their own rainwater supply whereas residents in those shires listed above can bucket water three days a week between 4pm and 7pm.

For more information on Toowoomba’s Level 5 water restrictions and tips on how to reduce household water consumption, please contact Council’s WaterWise section on 4688 6253 or visit the website on www.toowoomba.qld.gov.au.

Where is Toowoomba when it is not in SEQ - New South Wales perhaps ...

Khan - 'bucket system unacceptable' ...

... different Khan - this one's in South Africa.

See - South Africa: 1,200 Homes Set for Sewerage Link as Water Affairs Kicks the Bucket System - recycled water considered for flushing toilets.

Minister Wallace tells Singaporeans - 70% in SEQ want to drink recycled water ...

The Qld Minister for Water (and other things) complained about the 'peddlers of misinformation' during his recent visit to Singapore and explained that 70% of Queenslanders want to drink recycled water.

See - Minister Wallace becomes a 'peddler of misinformation'.

Also - Watch the video on that page.

Perhaps he'd like to release the studies which show this.

He wouldn't have been misleading the people at the conference in Singapore, would he ...

Traveston Federal inquiry - 187 submissions - only one in favour of the dam ...

... and that's the submission by the Qld Labor government.

Excerpt from the Courier Mail:

Backlash PR Disaster

13 April 2007

The Senate inquiry into the proposed Traveston Dam is turning into a public relations disaster for the Queensland Government.

Fierce opposition to the $1.7 billion project is coming from all sections of the community, including the RSL, Country Women's Association, local government, Aboriginal elders, farming and environmental groups, and the clergy.

Of 187 submissions received by the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, the only submission in support of the 180,000 megalitre dam was lodged by Premier Peter Beattie on behalf of the State Government.

An angry backlash awaits Mr Beattie – particularly from landowners whose properties must be resumed to build the dam – when the inquiry holds its first public hearings in Gympie and Brisbane next week.

The submissions argue the dam will destroy sensitive ecological habitats and valuable farming land, and have a devastating social impact on the local community.

Lining up to give evidence at the inquiry is Cate Molloy, the former Labor member for Noosa, who was disendorsed by Mr Beattie last year for opposing the dam.

In her submission, Ms Molloy said that based on Government Caucus meetings and personal discussions with the Premier, the dam site was chosen purely for political reasons to help win the 2006 election.
...

See - Beattie's PR disaster.

Turnbull targets Traveston ...

Politics. Premier Beattie will not be amused.

Excerpt from the Courier Mail:

Turnbull targets Traveston

13 April 2007

Traveston Crossing Dam has been dragged back into the spotlight by Federal Water Minister Malcolm Turnbull's controversial plan to pump water from the NSW northern rivers to Queensland's parched southeast.

Mr Turnbull yesterday said the series of pipelines from the Clarence, Mann and Tweed rivers could be a viable alternative to Traveston, which has been condemned widely by environmentalists, farmers and local residents.

The outrage was underscored by the fact only one of 187 submissions to next week's Senate dam inquiry was in favour of the project – and that was from the State Government.

Mr Turnbull used Brisbane's Parliament House as a backdrop to criticise Premier Peter Beattie for the water crisis.

"The responsibility for Queensland's water supplies lies with the State Government. Mr Beattie has no one to blame but himself," he said.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Howard issued a strong warning to NSW Premier Morris Iemma, saying he should not dismiss the pipelines out of hand for political reasons.

"It's not NSW's water, it's Australian water and I think Australian water should be available for Australians on terms that are fair and equitable," Mr Howard said.

Mr Turnbull released a National Water Commission study showing 795 million litres of water a day could be diverted by building five dams and weirs on the northern rivers and moving the water north.

The cost would be "significantly less than the cost of new water projects currently being undertaken in SEQ", it said.

"It's very viable from the point of view of water and an economic point of view," Mr Turnbull said.
...

See - Beattie to feel pressure over Traveston.

Also see - Dam the neighbours.

Toowoomba City Council - geared for fight (maybe) ...

Excerpt from the Chronicle:

Geared for fight

12 April 2007

Council of Mayors South East Queensland members have been asked to remain tight-lipped about last Thursday's discussions over the Premier's take-over bids on water infrastructure.

Toowoomba City Council completed its brief ordinary meeting on Tuesday night and went behind closed doors for a confidential briefing from an apologetic Mayor Dianne Thorley.

Council is geared up for a fight after Peter Beattie requested "detailed information about the water business assets, financials, existing contracts, human resources and payroll systems".


Although the asset value of Toowoomba's water assets is around $400 million, any sale of assets to the Qld government would need to be on the basis of an on-going water supply business, with an appropriate (higher) price based on its profitability (and it is a profitable business for the Council).

Mayor Thorley is yet to reveal whether she has struck any deal with Brisbane to hand over Toowoomba's water assets for little or no compensation ...

Singapore Desal/Water Reuse Summit - more education needed ...

Excerpt from Channel News Asia:

More efforts needed to promote desalinated, recycled water

12 April 2007

SINGAPORE: More efforts are needed to promote the acceptance of desalinated and recycled water.

135 leaders from 17 countries came to this conclusion at the inaugural Singapore Desalination and Water Reuse Leadership Summit held on Thursday.

The summit was organised by PUB and the International Desalination Association. Leaders at the summit agreed that water reuse and desalination offers many economic benefits. But public education is necessary to help the community understand how the technologies can benefit society in terms of safety, water quality and cost reduction.

These and other ideas that were exchanged at the two-day summit will be developed into a White Paper by two professors at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

See - Summit outcome - educate more.

Canberra - no united front on recycled water ...

Excerpt from the Canberra Times:

Corbell breaks party ranks; 'I am calling for more caution'

12 April 2007

Planning Minister Simon Corbell is at loggerheads with his leader Jon Stanhope after breaking party ranks yesterday over recycled water.

Mr Corbell accused his own Government of not being sufficiently cautious about a proposal to put recycled sewage into Canberra's drinking water.

In reply, Mr Stanhope said he was ''surprised'' by the claim, and staunchly defended his record on recycled water.

The water spat came on the same day Mr Corbell criticised Mr Stanhope's method of releasing land for development, and hard on the heels of ALP divisions over hospital parking and busways.

Yesterday's difference of opinion began when Mr Corbell summoned The Canberra Times to his office to criticise the Government's push towards using recycled water.

He said the practice carried potentially serious health risks and would use too much electricity.

''I've realised there's a need for a more sceptical approach,'' he said. ''I'm concerned that the recent water policy is a fait accompli.

''I think as a Government we do need to be more critical of what's being proposed. ''I am calling for more caution.''

Mr Corbell cited health concerns raised by Canberra Hospital infectious diseases physician Peter Collignon about drinking recycled sewage.

Mr Corbell called for a fresh Government inquiry into the issue, focusing on the risks of prescription drugs persisting in the water supply.

He said he had a better solution to Canberra's water shortage retro-fitting houses with grey-water systems and rainwater tanks to minimise their use of drinking water.

The Government could pay for all or part of the cost of $10,000-$15,000 per house. Mr Stanhope, who as Water Minister has overseen Actew's $350million recycled water proposal, vigorously rejected any suggestion he would place Canberrans' health at risk.

''I am surprised that there's been any suggestion that the Government is not being sufficiently cautious,'' he said.

He defended the process by which the recycled water proposal was being evaluated. Actew's proposal on which the Government will make a final decision later this year is for 9 gigalitres of waste water per year to be purified by microfiltration, reverse osmosis and UV-disinfection, then pumped into an enlarged Cotter Dam.

Mr Stanhope said an independent, expert reference group of highly regarded members was examining the water purification methods from a health perspective. The Government had also sought detailed advice on the economics and environmental impact of recycling water. A group from Actew and the Government is currently touring the United States inspecting water purification methods.
...

See - No united front.

Brisbane - yet another water source option ...

Extra desalination plant one day, water from northern NSW the next.

The SEQ water options keep expanding.

(Remember drinking recycled water is apparently the option of last resort - the 'Armageddon solution' according to Premier Beattie.)

Excerpt from Courier Mail:

Bold water solution for Qld

12 April 2007

A plan to pump water from NSW to help supply a parched southeast Queensland will be strongly backed in a report to be released today.

Federal Water Minister Malcolm Turnbull will unveil in Brisbane a study that concludes a cross-border pipeline would be a cost-effective option.

The study comes just days after the introduction of tough level 5 restrictions in Brisbane and the emergence of a State Government report recommending construction of the world's biggest desalination plant north of Brisbane to tackle the region's water crisis.

The new report argues that major rivers could be dammed in NSW and water transported north to southeast Queensland.

Mr Turnbull says the project would have been built years ago but for interstate rivalries.

It is understood the Federal Government would pump hundred of millions of dollars into the plan if it gets off the ground.

The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation report, commissioned by the National Water Commission, outlines five key options for further investigation, but warns co-operation between governments is essential.

Four of the options involve damming NSW's Clarence River and piping water north to the Logan River in Queensland.

A fifth option is to dam the Tweed River and pump water to the Nerang River. This plan would produce 20,000ML a year at the cost of $1.42 for every 1000 litres.

But the report argues that the best long-term solution would be a dam on the Clarence, above Duck Creek, that would yield 100,000ML each year.

Under level 5 restrictions, southeast Queensland consumption is expected to fall to 630 million litres a day.

The Federal Government will argue cost estimates make the project cheaper than recycling or desalinating water or building the Traveston Crossing Dam.

It is likely the report will get a luke-warm reception from the Queensland Government, which maintains it is too far to pump water from NSW. But the report indicates the biggest hurdles might not come from Queensland – but from NSW.

"The rivers of Northern NSW are subject to a number of legislative and policy requirements that would need to be addressed in a more detailed assessment," it warns.

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has promised a Labor Government would deliver $408 million for the western-corridor recycled water pipeline.

See - More water options for SEQ.

Toowoomba's vision for 2050 ...

Our Toowoomba towards 2050 - a vision for the future, a plan to guide us

Toowoomba 2050 is about people and places, facilities and services, infrastructure, development and the environment. It is about our place in South East Queensland and our role in servicing the Darling Downs and beyond. It is also about our future, the future of our children and those that follow.

A goal of the Toowoomba 2050 project is to hear the ideas of as many people as possible to help plan for the future of our city. This questionnaire is one of various engagement processes available for the community and 'interested others' to get involved in the project.

Your responses to this questionnaire are confidential and will be reported in general terms only.

The results of this questionnaire will be compiled along with the results of other Toowoomba 2050 engagement processes and used as input to the Toowoomba 2050 Community Plan.

A first draft of the plan will be made available towards the end of the year, for review by the community.

See - Toowoomba 2050 Questionnaire.

Give the Toowoomba City Council your comments on their vision for 2050 and whether you think a recycled water plant which would financially cripple the city should form part of those plans ...

Does piracy cause global warming ...

Excerpt from Sydney Morning Herald:

Cool heads missing in the pressure cooker

by Peter Hartcher

6 April 2007

The first thing that strikes you on reading the latest consensus report from the world's climate scientists about the effect of global warming is that it is like the plot of an Armageddon movie.

"The climate of the 21st century is virtually certain to be warmer with changes in extreme events," says the chapter on the effects on Australia and New Zealand, due to be published tonight in Brussels.

"Heatwaves and fires are virtually certain to increase in intensity and frequency (high confidence)", with the parenthetic notation meaning that the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attach a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent to this forecast.

"Floods, landslides, droughts and storm surges are very likely to become more frequent and intense, and snow and frost are likely to become less frequent (high confidence)," says the final draft of the document that the panel provided to the institutions that set it up, the world's governments.

"Ongoing water security problems are very likely to increase by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia and parts of NZ that are distant from major rivers (high confidence).

"Ongoing coastal development is very likely to exacerbate risk to lives and property from sea-level rise and storms. Sea level is virtually certain to rise (high confidence)."

So, for example, by 2050 a rise of 20 centimetres in the sea level along the Sydney coast combined with a big, once-in-50-year storm would bring the sea 110 metres further inland at Collaroy and Narrabeen beaches, a permanent loss of coast, the scientists project.

Then there is the damage to major infrastructure from extreme weather by 2030: "Risks include failure of flood plain protection and urban drainage-sewage, increased storm and fire damage, and more heatwaves causing more deaths and more blackouts (high confidence)."

Plus there is the expected damage to forestry and farming, the extinction of hundreds of species, and the destruction of unique environmental assets such as the Kakadu wetlands and the Great Barrier Reef.

And all this from a projected rise in average temperature of between 0.3 degrees and 3.4 degrees in the zone from Australia's coast to 800 kilometres inland, a warming that the scientists predict will happen by 2050 on present trends.

The warming in Australia so far, since 1910, has been between 0.6 and 1.2 degrees, with most of the rise since 1950. The reported rise in the sea level is seven centimetres.

The report, five years in the making, is the state of knowledge of the world's climate scientists. The chapter on Australia and New Zealand bears the names of 22 authors. The panel operates in three working groups.

The report of the first, on the physical science, went public in February. Tonight's is the work of the second, on impacts. The third, to be published next month, is on how to mitigate its effects.

The next thing that strikes you about the report is the high degree of uncertainty to which the authors readily confess. Climate change, the scientists write, "is taken to be due to both natural variability and human activities. The relative proportions are unknown unless otherwise stated".

In Australia's case, "it is very likely that increases in greenhouse gases have significantly contributed to the warming since 1950".

This wording - "very likely" and "significantly contributed" - is a useful reminder that we are still in the realm of hypothesis in trying to assess whether it is human activity that is responsible for global warming.

Scepticism in science, indeed in every realm of human affairs, is a healthy attitude.

The very highest accolade, the Nobel prize, has been awarded for acclaimed breakthroughs that are later discredited, like the 1949 decision to give the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz the prize for inventing the lobotomy as a cure for schizophrenia.

A leading Australian sceptic of man-made climate change is Ian Plimer, a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.

The fact that the Earth's atmospheric temperature is rising at the same time as humans emit more greenhouse gases is a correlation, and not a causation, he points out: "The Earth's temperature rose by 0.7 per cent in the 20th century, but there was also an increase in piracy. Does that mean piracy causes global warming?"

If Al Gore calls climate change an inconvenient truth, Plimer asks unfashionable questions.

"There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation. What if global warming has nothing to do with human activity?

"What happens if the astronomers are right, and the world is actually entering a cooling period?"

Plimer thinks the climate scientists are in the grip of groupthink and that other branches of science can lend perspective: "We geologists have seen climate change for 4500 million years. Tell us something new."

He dismissed the recent visit to Australia by Sir Nicholas Stern, an adviser to the British Treasury and author of the Stern report on climate change. Stern proposed that Australia cut its carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, and by 60 per cent by 2050, to avert catastrophic global warming.

Plimer's response: "Stern bases his argument on science, but he hasn't validated it. So from day one, I don't even let him out of the barrier."

What if the hypothesis is wrong? What if, like the Y2K hypothesis, all the experts turn out to be embarrassingly off the mark? What if Stern is wrong? He has proposed that the world spend 1 per cent of annual economic output for the next few decades to move from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy. What if this money, about $US400 billion a year, is spent on the basis of a flawed theory?

It was a question Stern was quite happy to answer during his visit to Sydney. "What if I'm wrong?" he posited in an interview with the Herald. "Well, suppose this science is a big hoax, and we believe it and we invest 1 per cent of GDP per annum. What are we going to get?

"We'll get a bunch of new technologies, some of which will turn out to be really super - say the price of solar energy really drops - this is the kind of thing we might get out of it.

"We'd get much less air pollution. You'll get cleaner fuels for developing countries, which will make cooking much safer. Air pollution in huts is the second most important cause of death in developing countries, after water shortages from lack of infrastructure.

"So you get a lot of collateral benefit. And you've spent 1 per cent of GDP for a while till you find out."

Then he turned the proposition around: "What if you take the much, much more likely hypothesis that the vast majority of the world's scientists are right. And you bet the other way.

You say: 'I don't believe all this stuff, I'm going to wait and see.'

"What if that bet's wrong? You end up in a position that's extremely hard to extricate yourself.

The flow of carbon emissions building up into the stock is like a ratcheting effect. You can't turn the clock back. The basic economics of risk point very strongly to action."

The annual sales of the global insurance industry, excluding life insurance, amount to 3.5 per cent of global GDP, according to McKinsey's management consultants.

If the world is prepared to pay the equivalent of 3.5 per cent of its total annual output to guard against the possibility of all sorts of risks that, in any one year for any one client, are quite remote, such as fire and theft, then the prospect of paying a 1 per cent premium to protect against a catastrophic global event seems entirely reasonable.

Australia's political leaders have abandoned scepticism on climate change. Both the Coalition and Labor are now pledged to overcoming climate change.

They are going about it in very different ways.

Kevin Rudd has embraced the targets for big cuts to Australia's carbon emissions, but refuses to say how these targets would operate. Will they be compulsory? How would they be enforced? He won't say. So Labor's policy is feelgood but, without a great deal more detail, it is phoney.

John Howard rejects any targets, any targets whatsoever, for cutting emissions. He offers a few specific initiatives but they are ad hoc, without any overall pattern or plan.

Howard's biggest single environmental initiative to date is his $10 billion plan to revive the Murray-Darling River system, and it is a very good plan. But it seeks to fix a problem of water flow without addressing the climate that produces the water. It addresses a symptom, not a cause.

Rudd accuses Howard of "not getting it". Howard accuses Rudd of seeking to destroy the jobs of Australian coalminers in a rush of green fundamentalism.

The good news is that it is an election year and problems, such as this one, that have been long ignored in Australia are getting a lot of attention. The bad news is that it's an election year, a feverish time when, as the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, told his department recently: "There is a greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad."

The overheating of the political climate in this election year is one form of climate change for which there is 100 per cent certainty.

See - Piracy and global warming.