Flanagan's report - why Water Futures would never have worked ...
Engineering Head Kevin Flanagan's report to the Toowoomba City Council meeting this week clearly shows what many knew all along - Mayor Thorley's recycled water project was a dud - it would never have provided the recycled water levels they said it would.
As you may recall, Water Futures was to provide the following:
- 5,000 ML p.a. of recycled water for Cooby Dam
- 1,000 ML p.a. to the Hampton irrigators
- 500 ML p.a. to the proposed Highfields purple pipe subdivision.
Total - 6,500 ML of recycled water p.a.
Remember, Acland Coal was to take the RO waste stream - something they never agreed to do. In Mayor Thorley's view, sending the contaminated RO waste stream to Acland for coal washing was what the Japanese end users of the coal deserved!
Using Mr Flanagan's numbers for 2006-March 2007, we see that Toowoomba's sewage number was estimated at 5,605 ML p.a. from which must be subtracted 629 ML for use at Millmerran, leaving 4,976 ML p.a. for recycling.
So 4,976 ML of sewage can produce 6,500 ML of recycled water.
These are the numbers that make a complete nonsense of assertions by Mayor Thorley and Mr Flanagan that Water Futures was a viable proposal for Toowoomba.
Leave aside the problems with the RO waste stream. Leave aside the fact that it could never be built for $68 million.
You simply cannot get 6,500 ML of recycled water from less than 5,000 ML of sewage. Something Anna Bligh is quickly learning.
And that's why it was a dud ...
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 9:11 AM
4 Comments:
The comments in today's Chronicle by Crow's Nest Shire CEO Dave McEvoy show how hard people want to perpetuate the myth that Water Futures would only cost $68 million (or less without the Visitor's Centre).
One only has to look at the costs for Beattie's Bundamba AWT plant to see that $68 million is nowhere near what it would cost to build a similar (although smaller) plant in Toowoomba.
Perhaps Mr McEvoy would like to fund the balance amount beyond $68 million from his own pocket. Then we'd see how sure he was that it would only cost $68 million.
Utter nonsense which the Chronicle happily prints ...
11:03 AM, May 02, 2007
Mr McEvoy also thinks the Water Futures project would produce 6,500 ML of recycled water which Mr Flanagan's own figures show is completely incorrect.
Amazing how the people in favour of the ill-fated Water Futures project continue to lie and mislead the public.
11:06 AM, May 02, 2007
Can someone please explain where the 25-29% of sewage water to be recycled is in this equation?
6:05 PM, May 03, 2007
In theory, recycled water was to make up 25-29% of Toowoomba's water supply.
Obviously that assumed that the dams were higher. As the dam levels got lower (and without greater reliance on bore water), the recycled water percentage would have increased beyond 25-29% (which CH2M Hill regarded as 'high by international standards').
Similarly, as Wivenhoe's level diminishes, the percentage of recycled water would increase - if the dam approaches empty - the recycled/desalinated water mix would be 80-20% or something around that.
A world first! Qld the effluent state!
10:23 PM, May 03, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home