Engineering Head Flanagan 'fast and loose' with the truth ...
Toowoomba City Council Engineering Head Kevin Flanagan seems to have a short memory.
He's quoted in today's Chronicle as saying at this week's Council meetings:
Toowoomba, he said, even under the Water Futures proposal, would need an external water source by 2025.
"Purified water was to be a long-term supply and never a drought contingency."
"No matter what, the city's drought contingency is water from the Great Artesian Basin," he said.
See - Flanagan tries a bit of misdirection.
This is the song Mr Flanagan currently sings.
But it wasn't always that way.
As part of the 'do anything say anything' approach to recycled water, Mr Flanagan tried to sell the Water Futures recycled water plant as the ultimate solution.
Claims by opponents that recycled water wasn't a solution were ridiculed. It was THE solution.
Things became a little tougher once the NWC funding application was wrestled off the Toowoomba City Council under a FOI request.
The funding application showed some interesting assumptions. Key was the one that assumed that the drought had broken by the time recycled water was to flow into Cooby Dam.
Opponents maintained the pressure and finally the truth was revealed at the first Water Facts meeting in March 2006.
Mr Flanagan stunned others around the table by stating that the Water Futures project was 'never intended to get Toowoomba through the drought'.
See - Water Futures was never intended to get Toowoomba through the current drought.
Once that cat was out of the bag, there was no stuffing it back in.
So the new game was to try to show that the Council had always said this.
But Toowoomba people knew better.
They knew that the Council had lied to them. Told them that with recycled water they could happily wash their cars and water their lawns once again. Told them recycled water was the magic bullet for Toowoomba's water source issues. Told them there were no other options.
So it's no surprise Mr Flanagan is still trying to recreate history.
But with the Toowoomba recycled water debate so well chronicled on the blogs, it's quite easy for him to trip up ...
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 9:28 AM
32 Comments:
I have been reluctant to comment on any of the posts that "concerned ratepayer" a faceless coward has produced over the past two years but enough is enough. If you had any backbone you might let the readers of this blog know who you are. However I very much doubt you would have the back backbone as you enjoy the cover of anonymity and you would risk legal proceedings if you revealed your true identity.
I repeat Water Futures Recycling was never designed as a solution to the current drought. Any reference to it being a solution to the drought was a fabrication of those pushing the "no" case and was just another tool in their scare campaign. If you had attended one of the hundreds of presentations that I gave over the 12 months leading up to the July 29 2006 poll you would have found out that Water Futures was a long term solution. The presentations also detailed our drought strategy and advised that from circa 2025 we would need an additional source of water to cater for growth. You seem to have got your info from one of the " unbiased " individuals on the sham "Water facts" group.
Your interpretation of our submission to the Australian Government also seems to be a bit confused. Yes we did say that water would be going into Cooby dam by mid 2007 and we would take Cooby dam off line. We also said that this was assuming the current drought had broken. If the drought had not broken which it hasn't we would still be pumping out of Cooby. This in no way can be interpreted as Water Futures Recycling being a drought solution as you have erroneously portrayed in your post . Get your facts right.
Kevin Flanagan
Director of Engineering Services
Toowoomba City Council
3:23 PM, July 06, 2007
The 4350water blog was created shortly after the Toowoomba City Council announced that it intended to build a recycled water plant in
Toowoomba with attached 'edutainment' facility costing a total of $68 million.
The 4350water blog has, since that time, raised a number of issues of public interest relating to whether the recycled water plant could in fact be built for $68 million and whether the proponents of the plant were conducting themselves in a manner which was appropriate for elected officials and public servants.
At times, the 4350water blog might segue into State and Federal politics and environmental issues - blame it on the contributors. Most readers seem to enjoy the cartoons.
At numerous Council meetings, public meetings and press conferences, it became evident that the public in Toowoomba were not being given the whole story regarding the proposed recycled water project.
There is a strong argument to be made that the conduct of elected officials and public servants should be subject to public scrutiny.
With the media in Toowoomba failing to question the Council and engaging in 'advertorial' reporting, it fell to a number of blogs to raise the questions they wouldn't.
This is not so different from the US where blogs play a significant role in political accountability.
Where an individual is from time to time the 'public face' of the Toowoomba City Council and playing 'fast and loose' with the truth or particular facts, it is in the public interest that an opposing view be aired. Those who want to read it can. Those who don't do not have to. No one forces anyone to type the URL www.4350water.blogspot.com.
If the Toowoomba City Council were genuine in seeking out alternate long-term water sources, rather than trying to resurrect the failed Water Futures project against the will of a majority of Toowoomba voters, the 4350water blog would more than likely cease to exist.
If there wasn't the reader demand and interest in the other side of the story, the 4350water blog would simply drift away.
But that just isn't the case for the moment.
So, some questions readers would probably like answers to:
1. When did you commence working on a strategy to introduce potable reuse into Toowoomba?
2. Why was this not disclosed to the public at that time?
3. Prior to the public announcement, what was the nature of the discussions between Council representatives and CH2M Hill?
4. Why did the Toowoomba City Council resist releasing the NWC funding application?
5. Why has the Toowoomba City Council been unable to produce the hydrology report that it used as the basis for justifying that Toowoomba needed a recycled water plant and for requesting federal funding?
6. Why were the costings for the Water Futures project never independently assessed? Not the other options - the Water Futures costings. The Parsons Brinkerhoff report assumed the Council's figures were correct and just added 10% on top for cost increases. That's not an assessment.
7. Why did the Toowoomba City Council maintain that nothing could get through the RO membranes, even using diagrams in promotional material showing this - when this was not correct?
8. Why does the Toowoomba City Council think that they can build a recycled water plant for $68 million when the three SEQ recycled water plants and associated pipelines (although larger) will cost around $2 billion?
9. Why did the Toowoomba City Council not make any statement that Water Futures was not a solution to the drought until it was reported in the Chronicle in March 2006, 8 months after the project was announced?
10. Why do you call the Water Facts group a 'sham' when it was in fact skewed towards the Yes campaign?
11. Was the outgoing Mayor's tactic of using radio rather than print media to claim 70% support for the recycled water project a planned strategy?
12. Where did the Toowoomba City Council propose to send the RO waste stream, given that it was never likely that New Acland Coal wanted the waste stream? 'Cool on the idea' was their response.
13. Why did the Toowoomba City Council try to get the State government to shut down blogs reporting on the Toowoomba water debate in April 2006 when neither the Council nor the State government had the legal right to do so? What justification was there for harassing particular blogs in an attempt to stifle political debate? Did the Council intend to shut down every chatroom where someone mentioned the Toowoomba water debate?
14. Why would you think that any legal proceedings would not involve a discussion of the implied constitutional freedom of political communication?
When these are answered, there will probably be more.
7:06 PM, July 06, 2007
P.S. Should you feel that any particular comment about you in a blog article on the 4350water blog goes beyond 'fair comment', it will be immediately reviewed and, if appropriate, amended.
That's a better offer than you'd get from the mainstream media.
7:52 PM, July 06, 2007
Concerned Ratepayer 1
Flanagan 0
Come on Flanagan start with No.5!
Interesting the time this was put on. It would have taken someone like you all day to put it on at ratepayers expense, but I suppose you did something.
8:46 PM, July 06, 2007
I have contributed to the recycled water discussions in one form or another over the past couple of years using my name or one of the many anonymous comments. Been a good retirement interest. I'm really curious over what exactly would be the legal proceedings that Kevin and maybe some others think should be brought against the blogs. Can you tell us Kevin?
11:02 PM, July 06, 2007
Talking about legal proceedings, that is exactly what I and lots of others were going to do if recyled effluent started flowing through our taps. Hopefully with a new fresh mayor in 2008 and a few people sacked for incompetence we'll never have to contemplate that again!
11:33 PM, July 06, 2007
Interesting!
I would like to see TCC's Water Futures video again - perhaps it could be posted to YouTube: Do you remember the little old lady carrying buckets to her garden and the visual inference that Water Futures would let her get her hose out again and water her garden.
If PRW wasn't sold to the community as a drought solution then why include that scene - nobody is going to be carrying buckets except in a drought.
Why do so many comments still appear in Chronicle letters to the editor along the lines "Manners, Morley Berghofer - where will the water come from when the bores run dry?" - if there wasn't a general community perception that YOUR recycled water was going to help in the drought? Where did that misconception come from - it came from you Kev, during your video presentations.
If you look back, the whole TCC Water Futures campaign was lies, inference, half truths and incorrect facts - not all perpertrated by you, Kev, but you chose some really half-wit politicians like Thorley, Ramia etc. to carry the message.
The reason you got stuck with them is because of the stated tactic (Paul Greenfield and the San Diego crew and others) that you could only get a community to accept purified sewage during a drought.
It seems purified sewage has been on your agenda since the late 90's but it just so happens Thorley and her crew were the council in place during the next available drought - so you were stuck with them.
"Kevvie and I argued for 21 days before he convinced me." and in the US airport "Don't you walk away Kevvie" when she queried the political fallout.
It's been your baby all along and you are running out of time.
Either the drought will break or the council will be ousted - either or both of those will happen by the end of March.
Then what?
Then PRW will have to stand up as a rational option not a last resort by a community deliberately terrified by people like you.
12:01 AM, July 07, 2007
Good morning all
Given the timing of some of your posts you were up late last night. It seems my predictions are right "concerned ratepayer" has no backbone and remains a faceless coward. My post also drew w.f.blog out of the woodwork at midnight. He is another faceless coward. I am assuming he is male. Maybe "w.f. blog" and " concerned ratepayer" is the same person???W.f Blog refers to me as Kev trying to make out we are all friends. But after having to but up with the slander etc in the Water Futures Blog Site we aint friends. You people (and I include the likes of greg m, wateruser06,p-off and many other anonymous contributors)claim that you are contributing to political debate and political accountability. What rubbish ! True political debate has individuals who identify themselves making comment in the public domain and welcome one on one comment from other named individuals who might agree with or oppose their views. You lot hide behind anonymity, espousing your conspiracy theories, slandering any one that is opposed to your views and with the full knowledge that you are not held accountable for any post on your bloggs. To anonymous john (11.02pm), my point is not about taking any action against bloggs per se ,it relates to legal action that is open when a person defams another person by comments attributed to them in other forms of media where names have to be disclosed. But you have to have backbone to stand behind you views.
"conerned ratepayer" did not address the advice I provided in my original post ( I did not expect he would), however he did ask a number of questions all related to the production of ongoing conspiracy theories that 4350Water and WaterFutures blogs are so expert in producing. At the risk of giving you futher info to feed you Conspiracy Theory mill Let me attempt to answer some of your questions. I will provide my answers under the same numerical headings.
1.Initially I started thinking about the possibility in November 2004 on a trip to the Hunter Valley to see how mines are supplied with water from treatment plants. I was further motivated to investiagte further in December 2004 when DNRM&W advised of our reduced yielsd.
2. Simple it was still being developed . The National Water Commission Guidelines for funding were not released until April 2005 and it took until June 2005 to develope the strategy . It was developed with the concurrence of all members of council and was released to the public in the launch by Member for Groom Hon Ian Macfarlane in the first week of July 2005.
3.Prior to the public release CH2MHill were engaged to carry out feasibility studies and costings of some of the treatment componants. Other consultants such as Arup Water, Tyco Water, GHD, CSIRO and 4 site natural solutions were also engaged , but any reference to them does not assist you with portraying CH2MHill as the bogey in your conspiracy theories.
4. Did we? you got what you wanted via the FOI process.
5. The DNRW carried out the review and advised of our revised yield in Dec 04. In all our presentations we advised of the DNRW advice and further commented that the DNRW were yet to release the repot. The did finally release a draft in July 2006 and the report was presented to Council ( Public Document) in Nov 2006. It is draft because the current drought is the critical drought in the review and until the drought ends the yield has the potential to change further. Having said that the advice given verbally in Dec 2004 has not changed in the july 06 draft.
6.Our estimates were verified By the National Water Commission who were happy to approve the funding based on our submission . The so called other options we bandied about by the no case with out any costings and it was only by TCC and State Governments actions that these other options were costed.
7. We advised that 30 ppm of total Dissolved Salts could pass the RO membrane and that is why we added the Advanced oxidation and UV disinfection as additional barriers. Multi barrier system to ensure the purity of the product But heck I will never convince you lot.
8. We dont.Its your action that have prevented that . If we would have received the funding in Sept 2005 as Minister Macfarlane was sure to advise us at the launch in july 05,we would have recieved extremely competitive tenders and would have delivered the project by august this year. The market today is inflated markedly by the urgency to supply water infrastructure projects in SEQ and the rest of Australia. The no case proponants have ensured that what ever solution awaits Toowoomba it is going to at a much greater cost.
9.Water Futures was never a drought solution . Any statements that it was was a fabrication of the no case.
10 Clearly it was a sham. Alan Kleinschmidt and I only became members after protesting about the bias. The original membership was Doug Harland, Ian Andersen,Rod Scott,Paul Rigby,Ken Murphy,Snow Manners, Cr Lyle Shelton, Peter Marks,John McVeigh, Cr Ian Orford,Terry Kirkland,Ron Barclay and Clive Berghofer. Hardly the original makeup can be classed as pro Water Futures.
11. I dont know maybe you should ask her.
12 What makes you think that Acland Coal does not want our effluent? Dont give me the excuse that they are taking 150 ML/yr from Oakey and that will underpin their expansion.
13 Thats news to me. Did we do that?
Maybe you are a little paranoid!!
14 See my comment to anonymous john earlier.
As far as "w.f.blogs" comment about the video , thats right take one little bit and ignore the rest. The footage of the buckets was to say that we need to find additional sources of water so that we would not be subject to having to use buckets in future droughts etc . Water Futures provided the answer to being a long term source of water that would have drought proofed this city until about 2025 when additional sources would be required to cater for growth past 2025.
The very clever and successful campaign by the No case with its scare campaign and its advertising that advised people that if they voted yes then they were locked in to drinking sewerage and if the voted No then all options including recycling would be on the table has cost this city dearly. We will be drinking recycled water but it will be Brisbane's recycled water pumped up 650 m from Wivenhoe at a huge cost.
I have better things to do than commenting on your grubby little bloggs and I will sign off wishing you all the best in your lives and maybe I might post a blog in a year or Two or earlier if you identify yourselves.
Regards
Kevin Flanagan
Director of Engineering Services
Toowoomba City Council
11:40 AM, July 07, 2007
What will be the source of water after 2025?
A dam? More bores? A pipeline from Wivenhoe? What?
Probably direct potable reuse according to the 1996 EIDN studies you seem to conveniently forget when Peter Taylor was engineer and you were 2IC.
Are you saying that as a member of the AWA (AWWA as it was then)you remained blind to funding submissions for potable reuse?
Did you miss the 2002 Mobile Advanced Direct Potable Reuse Demonstration Plant located at Pine Rivers, owned by Qld EPA, managed by Qld DNR for CIRM?
The Qld Government has been directly involved in four failed attempts to force the introduction of treated sewage effluent directly into Qld's water supply mains since 1995.
Did you miss the Caloundra Maroochy engagement process?
You are either blatantly lying or completely out of touch with developments in municipal water supply when you say Initially I started thinking about the possibility in November 2004 on a trip to the Hunter Valley ....
Neither reflects favourably on you when you are managing a city water supply.
At least two studies were done in Toowoomba around 1996.
Just leave the post 2025 water supply for another generation to fight about meanwhile "advance the cause".
I'm not dealing with the your answers to the 14 questions here, they deserve a post all of their own.
As for identity: "W F Blog" is a community who all work together.
Who would risk the abuse and villification Thorley and you have heaped on Berghofer, Manners and Morley in your efforts to rewrite the Toowoomba debate?
Go and annoy South Africa.
2:25 PM, July 07, 2007
You have forgotten to mention Economic Aspects of Water Recycling in Queensland Prepared on behalf of Queensland Water Recycling Strategy by PriceWaterhouseCoopers April 2000
Didn't your mate Mike Gerlach Australian Institute of Environmental Health (TCC) ever discuss his role on the Independent Reference Panel with you in the tea room at work before 2004?
He was on that panel from Feb 1998 to Nov 2000.
Good on you bloggers - keep it coming.
3:14 PM, July 07, 2007
Fantastic to see you so upset about this Kevin. Now you know how most of the people in this city felt before the Water Futures poll.
I,m just glad the whole scare tactic of running out of water didn't sway too many away from the real issues of health, environmental, social and economic effects of putting recycled effluent into drinking water supplies!
4:10 PM, July 07, 2007
Mr Flanagan , not once did you or more importantly the Mayor ever debate this recycled sewage project with the public of Toowoomba!
You took our rate payer's money and tried to educate us and it did not work.
We are a lucky community because we had Morley Manners and Berghofer to fight the good fight for us because we certainly did not have an investigative news paper to ferret out the facts.
Morley , Manners and Berghofer and supporters did and you and your team don't like it .
If this is the case, you and the team had better think of your future because big changes are on the way next March.
5:43 PM, July 07, 2007
Mr Flanagan, the offer is made again.
Should you feel that any particular comment about you in a blog article on the 4350water blog goes beyond 'fair comment', it will be immediately reviewed and, if appropriate, amended.
Can't be fairer than that.
9:37 PM, July 07, 2007
Mr Flanagan your smart arsed answer to number 4 only shows how much contempt you and the Mayor held the ordinary person.
The community knows that those same people paid $1300-00 to get information that should have been readily available if all was above board.
The section i which is an environmental impact study was held back and eventually released so we were told.
What could be so sensitive that it took a long time to come through?We all know about the blue grass and the frogs, lizards BUT there must still be more, maybe it was where and what was going to happen to the evaporation ponds?
10:19 PM, July 07, 2007
We always knew that recycled water is not the solution and you had to have another source - an experiment with glasses of water shows that you cannot recycle forever
10:43 PM, July 07, 2007
Flanagans point 1: Initially I started thinking about the possibility in November 2004 ... is just a blatant lie.
October 23 2005 W F Blog posted Council sought funding for recycling prior to the last election..
Flanagan moved into TCC Director of Engineering when Peter Taylor became TCC CEO. Way back in 2000 when he knew he had a weak Mayor, Flanagan was doing IPR plants and costing them by comparison to dam construction. The IPR would defer the dam by 10-15 years.
It was all reported to the Senate and is in Hansard.
"Mr Taylor: —Again, if I can go back to my Toowoomba experience, I spent three or four years (and he was giving evidence in June 2004) trotting down here a couple of times a year with the mayor and doing various lobbying exercises trying to get some funding for a $50 million project for Toowoomba." Go read the whole Hansard.
Thank goodness Flanagan is now on record here either lying or accusing the former CEO of lying to the senate inquiry.
We haven't even got past Question 1.
Toowoomba has been lied to from start to finish. Glad to be outta there.
10:49 PM, July 07, 2007
Clearly another member of the Flanagan Fan Club!
11:56 PM, July 07, 2007
Last Anonymous - I think that you have it wrong - he is not a member of the Fan Club -just trying to set the record straight
1:25 AM, July 08, 2007
um, I was joking.
2:06 AM, July 08, 2007
Back to the LIE about purified water being a drought solution.
The video is not an isolated, out of context example.
On July 18, 2006 Toowoomba Chronicle page 9 Kevin Flanagan inserted an advertisment as part of the campaign he was responsible for.
Why a YES vote is so important:
Marjorie Laurie: "People should really go and have a look at how low the dams are, so they understand just how desperate the situation is. We need to vote yes because we need the water."
Helen Phillips: "We have to think about what will happen if we don't recycle - I don't want the nightman coming to empty the pan. I say yes to recycling"
Remember the bus trips organised to take the old folk on a tour of the dams and frighten them?
Did the advertisement convey the idea that recycling would solve the current drought water problem? Of course it did.
You ran a deceitful and immoral scare campaign.
10:41 AM, July 08, 2007
On Thu Jul 27 2006 Kevin Flanagan authorised a supplement to the Chronicle in the wake of "Clive's Newspaper".
The front was a 'Message from the Mayor':
"If predictions of warmer winters and drier, hotter summers are correct, then it is a metter of urgency that we find an alternative water source.
Water Futures Toowoomba is the answer. With the innovative strategy that includes water recycling and water wise techniques, Water Futures is tackling the community's water crisis head on."
That is a specific claim that purified sewage would solve the current crisis.
11:21 AM, July 08, 2007
Question 1:
When did you commence working on a strategy to introduce potable reuse into Toowoomba?
KF: Initially I started thinking about the possibility in November 2004 on a trip to the Hunter Valley to see how mines are supplied with water from treatment plants. I was further motivated to investiagte further in December 2004 when DNRM&W advised of our reduced yielsd.
4350water: Given that Toowoomba City Council was discussing potable reuse with consultants as early as 1996, it seems unlikely that Council wasn't considering the issue until 2004.
Question 2:
Why was this not disclosed to the public at that time?
KF: Simple it was still being developed . The National Water Commission Guidelines for funding were not released until April 2005 and it took until June 2005 to develope the strategy . It was developed with the concurrence of all members of council and was released to the public in the launch by Member for Groom Hon Ian Macfarlane in the first week of July 2005.
4350water: The bigger question is - with such a well developed strategy to introduce potable reuse to Toowoomba, why were the voters not told of this prior to the 2004 Toowoomba City Council election? Why wait until after the election?
Question 3:
Prior to the public announcement, what was the nature of the discussions between Council representatives and CH2M Hill?
KF: Prior to the public release CH2MHill were engaged to carry out feasibility studies and costings of some of the treatment componants. Other consultants such as Arup Water, Tyco Water, GHD, CSIRO and 4 site natural solutions were also engaged , but any reference to them does not assist you with portraying CH2MHill as the bogey in your conspiracy theories.
4350water: It doesn't aid conspiracy theories one way or the other to ask - what were the nature of those discussions? Were any of the advisers interested in using Toowoomba as the test case for potable reuse plants elsewhere in Australia? If not, why would it be necessary to build an edutainment centre?
Question 4:
Why did the Toowoomba City Council resist releasing the NWC funding application?
KF: Did we? you got what you wanted via the FOI process.
4350water: The Toowoomba City Council did drag its heels as much as possible - it was an extremely silly move as it only made the No campaigners more determined to get hold of it and see what the Council wanted to hide. Incidentally, this was the first that people knew that 30 mgs/l TDS got through the membranes. It was not disclosed by the Toowoomba City Council prior to this time.
Question 5:
Why has the Toowoomba City Council been unable to produce the hydrology report that it used as the basis for justifying that Toowoomba needed a recycled water plant and for requesting federal funding?
KF: The DNRW carried out the review and advised of our revised yield in Dec 04. In all our presentations we advised of the DNRW advice and further commented that the DNRW were yet to release the repot. The did finally release a draft in July 2006 and the report was presented to Council ( Public Document) in Nov 2006. It is draft because the current drought is the critical drought in the review and until the drought ends the yield has the potential to change further. Having said that the advice given verbally in Dec 2004 has not changed in the july 06 draft.
4350water: Toowoomba City Council made a federal government funding application on the basis of a document which did not exist. You can try to dress it up as 'verbal advice' (perhaps a chat down the pub over dam levels) or 'draft reports' but there was no report, there is no report and it was silly to claim otherwise in the NWC funding application.
Question 6:
Why were the costings for the Water Futures project never independently assessed? Not the other options - the Water Futures costings. The Parsons Brinkerhoff report assumed the Council's figures were correct and just added 10% on top for cost increases. That's not an assessment.
KF: Our estimates were verified By the National Water Commission who were happy to approve the funding based on our submission . The so called other options we bandied about by the no case with out any costings and it was only by TCC and State Governments actions that these other options were costed.
4350water: Same question - why were the Water Futures project costings never independently assessed? Here's a thought - they weren't independently assessed because it would have clearly shown that Water Futures wasn't the cheapest option - much of the Toowoomba City Council's advertising focused on Water Futures being cheaper than the other options. It never was and the project would have saddled Toowoomba with an unsustainable debt burden. That would have been the Yes campaigners' legacy.
Question 7:
Why did the Toowoomba City Council maintain that nothing could get through the RO membranes, even using diagrams in promotional material showing this - when this was not correct?
KF: We advised that 30 ppm of total Dissolved Salts could pass the RO membrane and that is why we added the Advanced oxidation and UV disinfection as additional barriers. Multi barrier system to ensure the purity of the product But heck I will never convince you lot.
4350water: The misleading information on TDS first came to light once the NWC funding application was released. Toowoomba City Council released its Water Book with the misleading diagram and was then forced to backflip and admit that not everything was stopped by the membranes. It was an amateurish mistake that would never have been made if Council had actually looked at the NEWater video rather than focusing on their brochures.
Question 8:
Why does the Toowoomba City Council think that they can build a recycled water plant for $68 million when the three SEQ recycled water plants and associated pipelines (although larger) will cost around $2 billion?
KF: We dont.Its your action that have prevented that . If we would have received the funding in Sept 2005 as Minister Macfarlane was sure to advise us at the launch in july 05,we would have recieved extremely competitive tenders and would have delivered the project by august this year. The market today is inflated markedly by the urgency to supply water infrastructure projects in SEQ and the rest of Australia. The no case proponants have ensured that what ever solution awaits Toowoomba it is going to at a much greater cost.
4350water: So, the Toowoomba City Council is now admitting it cannot build a recycled water plant for $68 million? Perhaps you should tell some of the Councillors this startling admission. The point about 'competitive tenders' is interesting. In the original documentation for the Wetalla expansion, the CH2M Hill consortium had an option to build the Water Futures plant. This was subsequently dropped. Seems like at one point there was to be no competitive tender process for the Water Futures plant. Why the backflip?
Question 9:
Why did the Toowoomba City Council not make any statement that Water Futures was not a solution to the drought until it was reported in the Chronicle in March 2006, 8 months after the project was announced?
KF: Water Futures was never a drought solution . Any statements that it was was a fabrication of the no case
4350water: So the No campaigners were responsible for writing and publishing the Yes campaign ads?
Question 10:
Why do you call the Water Facts group a 'sham' when it was in fact skewed towards the Yes campaign?
KF: Clearly it was a sham. Alan Kleinschmidt and I only became members after protesting about the bias. The original membership was Doug Harland, Ian Andersen,Rod Scott,Paul Rigby,Ken Murphy,Snow Manners, Cr Lyle Shelton, Peter Marks,John McVeigh, Cr Ian Orford,Terry Kirkland,Ron Barclay and Clive Berghofer. Hardly the original makeup can be classed as pro Water Futures.
4350water: The public statements made by the Water Facts group were usually skewed towards the Yes case. But perhaps the 'advertorial' Chronicle shares some responsibility for that.
Question 11:
Was the outgoing Mayor's tactic of using radio rather than print media to claim 70% support for the recycled water project a planned strategy?
KF: I dont know maybe you should ask her.
4350water: Perhaps if the question is reframed. Was it Toowoomba City Council policy to have the outgoing Mayor use radio rather than print media for her claims of 70% support?
Question 12:
Where did the Toowoomba City Council propose to send the RO waste stream, given that it was never likely that New Acland Coal wanted the waste stream? 'Cool on the idea' was their response.
KF: What makes you think that Acland Coal does not want our effluent? Dont give me the excuse that they are taking 150 ML/yr from Oakey and that will underpin their expansion
4350water: Perhaps the fact that they never made a public statement in support of the project or confirmed that they would take the RO waste stream. It seemed like they wanted something in the form of recycled water but not the RO waste stream the Council wanted to dump on them. In the private sector, a bankable feasibility study for a project would require a contractual commitment from a party who was so crucial to the project's success. Perhaps government projects go along on 'a wing and a prayer'. The RO waste stream was a significant flaw in the plan - in the NWC funding application, CH2M Hill even raised the possibility of piping it to the sea - like Singapore.
Question 13:
Why did the Toowoomba City Council try to get the State government to shut down blogs reporting on the Toowoomba water debate in April 2006 when neither the Council nor the State government had the legal right to do so? What justification was there for harassing particular blogs in an attempt to stifle political debate? Did the Council intend to shut down every chatroom where someone mentioned the Toowoomba water debate?
KF: Thats news to me. Did we do that? Maybe you are a little paranoid!!
4350water: Another attempt to reinvent history. There was an attempt by the Local Government Minister's office to sideline blogs focusing on the No campaign. Perhaps they came up with this idea all by themselves.
Question 14:
Why would you think that any legal proceedings would not involve a discussion of the implied constitutional freedom of political communication?
KF: See my comment to anonymous john earlier. (my point is not about taking any action against bloggs per se ,it relates to legal action that is open when a person defams another person by comments attributed to them in other forms of media where names have to be disclosed.)
4350water: Should you feel that any particular comment about you in a blog article on the 4350water blog goes beyond 'fair comment', it will be immediately reviewed and, if appropriate, amended.
1:22 PM, July 08, 2007
In the 1970s Deep Throat brought down the Nixon Administration over the Watergate scandal by feeding information to the Washington Post. He was an insider who knew that the only way to get the truth told was to pass information to the press.
If the Watergate scandal occurred in 2007, Deep Throat would be a blogger and the press would be using that information as the basis for investigating and producing their own stories.
It's the age of New Media.
3:52 PM, July 08, 2007
It would seem that the Toowoomba city Council has mislead the NWC in stating that the safe yields have been exceeded. We now know that there is no report on some verbal thingy.
How do they get away with this?
4:29 PM, July 08, 2007
Coward: word history: A coward is one who "turns tail." The word comes from Old French couart, coart, "coward," and is related to Italian codardo, "coward." Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, "tail" (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, "cowardly lion," was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.
Doesn't seem to fit the bloggers.
The reality is that many people during the water debate preferred to stay silent or anonymous because of the fear campaign which ruled within council. Those who spoke out risked retribution and this applied not only to council workers but also to any business that depended on council cooperation to get anything done.
Come March next year, it will be like a grey cloud is lifted from Toowoomba as an era of political thuggery will be over.
Hats off to the individuals who stood up to the council in a variety of forums and said No we will not let certain individuals subvert the democratic process.
6:32 PM, July 08, 2007
Kevie - I have better things to do than commenting on your grubby little bloggs.
Apparently not.
8:27 PM, July 08, 2007
This was on the Water Futures website for the children:
"Talk to your parents, teachers, aunts, uncles, friends and neighbours. Let them know that you support the Water Futures project.
The July 29 poll is about your future, tell them to vote YES to keep your future flowing!"
See - Focus on the children.
On the issue of water recycling solving the drought, the outgoing Mayor said:
"We have to do something. What is my city doing carting buckets to water the garden? We’re not in the Third World," she said.
See - Blog wars, threatening phone calls - Toowoomba Water Futures.
11:06 PM, July 08, 2007
Good morning all,
Seems my comments have stirred up a hornet’s nest. I will post just one more comment to answer some of the very brave anonymous comments that have appeared over the weekend, then I will leave you all alone.
I see ex tcc officer has contributed and again he also has got his facts wrong. Firstly read the question that “concerned ratepayer” asked and I answered. It asked “1. When did you commence working on a strategy to introduce potable reuse in Toowoomba? Secondly and more importantly, may be before you criticise me, you should actually read the document you refer to namely “Economic Aspects of Water Recycling in Queensland”. If you did take the time to read it you will see that it has nothing to do with indirect or direct potable reuse. You also refer to Peter Taylor’s evidence to the Federal Parliament House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage - Sustainable Cities relating to a recycling scheme circa 2000 where we sought $50 million from the Commonwealth to fund the scheme. This scheme was to supply treated effluent to the Charlton Wellcamp Industrial Estate, Acland Coal Mine, Millmerran Power Station and to Irrigators along Oakey and Gowrie Creek Irrigators and had absolutely nothing to do with potable reuse in Toowoomba . As the Charlton Wellcamp demand at that time was to be met by connecting to the Toowoomba potable supply, the recycling scheme would have deferred the need to bring forward additional sources of water. This scheme was killed off in late 2003 when the Commonwealth refused to fund the project. Reports on this project are all in the public record in Council minutes. So, on a second account you are totally wrong.
As far as the 1996 EIDN July 1996 Proposal is concerned I advise as follows:-
EIDN Proposal – TOOWOOMBA WATER WATER REUSE PROJECT (July 1996)
1. The Environmental Industry Development Network (EIDN) was established in the early 1990s as an initiative of:
§ The Department of Industry Science and Tourism
§ CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control Limited
§ Environment Management Industry Association of Australia
The TOOWOOMBA WATER REUSE PROJECT document states that the network created a Water Reuse Joint Venture to “integrate the disparate activities of firms and governments with interests in the environmental management, technology and services sector and to provide project development, innovation and capability building services. The purpose of the Joint Venture is to accelerate the development and demonstration of a strong, innovative and internationally competitive environment management industry.” The key goal of the EIDN Project Team was:
“To develop a world class water reuse project, built with Australian Technology and know-how, demonstrating the commercial, economical and environmental benefits of water reuse with minimum risk to the customer.”
2. The EIDN appears to have been dissolved at some time around 1997 based on dates on the discussion papers still posted on the web. The EIDN home page has been removed, and attempts to follow up on contacts listed on the remaining web pages have been unsuccessful.
3. The TOOWOOMBA WATER REUSE PROJECT report is clearly in an early draft form, and appears to have been produced purely as a speculative exercise, assessing the potential for the development of a proposal which might be presented to Toowoomba City Council at some time in the future.
4. The report was prepared in 1996, and as such reflects the state of knowledge and development of water reuse projects at that time. It does not take into account developments and experience gained over the last 10 years.
5. Toowoomba City Council has no record of any correspondence relating to this proposal, and the only involvement by Toowoomba City Council Officers appears to have been to provide routine information in response to requests from the joint venture partners.
6. There is no evidence that a final proposal was ever developed, or that any such proposal was ever presented to Toowoomba City Council. As such it should not be considered an authoritative reference, and is in no way endorsed by Toowoomba City Council.
“concerned ratepayer” you ask the following question after considering my response to your question 2.
4 4350water: The bigger question is - with such a well developed strategy to introduce potable reuse to Toowoomba, why were the voters not told of this prior to the 2004 Toowoomba City Council election? Why wait until after the election?4350water: The big
The
The answer is simple there was no strategy until the release of our Submission to the Commonwealth Government for funding in July 2005 some 15 months after the 2004 Elections. You don’t have to believe me but I am sure ex Councillor Lyle Shelton can confirm that there was no strategy to introduce indirect potable reuse prior to 2005
Thank you “concerned ratepayer” for your generous offer viz:-
“Should you feel that any particular comment about you in a blog article on the 4350water blog goes beyond 'fair comment', it will be immediately reviewed and, if appropriate, amended.”
I suggest you delete every post and comment that does not have the name of the author contributing the post or comment.
Have a nice day
Kevin Flanagan
Director of Engineering Services
Toowoomba City Council
9:22 AM, July 09, 2007
There is no justification for singling out the 4350water blog and requesting the deletion of posts and comments without the name of the author without also:
- asking the Chronicle to cease publishing SMS messages which fail to disclose the person's real name
- asking the Chronicle to verify the names attributed to Letters to the Editor
- asking radio stations to ensure that talkback callers use their real names
- asking the Courier Mail to ensure that those leaving comments on online news articles are using their real names
- trawling the myriad chatrooms which have content on the recycled water debate and requesting that everyone posting use their real name
- requesting the same occur on pro-potable reuse blogs (there are some).
A level playing field for all.
However, should you feel that any particular comment about you in a blog article on the 4350water blog goes beyond 'fair comment', it will be immediately reviewed and, if appropriate, amended.
10:55 AM, July 09, 2007
As an AWA member of long standing you will remember Bob Macintosh's EIDN paper AWWA POTABLE RE-USE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT which says "There are no further commitments yet on a third location but considerable interest has been expressed by Caboolture Shire, Maroochy Shire and Ipswich City Council and it is known that Toowoomba are actively investigating reuse possibilities."
What Lyle Shelton might know as a Councillor is irrelevant - what goes on in your department or what you, the Mayor and the CEO embark on doesn't have to be presented to Council until you see the window of opportunity to get it passed.
Anyone can go read the minutes and see nothing yet Linda McPherson of CH2M Hill was on the Council payroll for $220,000 (out of your engineering budget) preparing a community engagement strategy before Councillors even knew project funding was being sought.
Do you really think Water Futures was a Councillor's idea? If so which Councillor suggested it?
It must have been suggested by you. Thorley said you argued with her for three weeks and you convinced her.
Hi Di, I've been down the Hunter Valley and come up with a great idea - purified sewage.
21 days later.
Hi Di, I just had a casual chat with a DNR guy who says our dams are dry. - Report? Oh! He reckons he can make one up in 18 months or so.
Surprise, surprise Peter Beattie was down the Hunter Valley same day as me and he wants us to help him get Brisbane on purified sewage too.
By the way can you help me man a polling booth for Kerry Shine?
EIDN did disband but if you want to catch up on some contacts try the International Water Centre they are on the QWC payroll and will benefit hugely from the $25 million Beattie just allocated to The SEQ Urban Water Security Research Alliance.
11:59 AM, July 09, 2007
When it's all said and done this hole exercise is about big business (CH2M Hill and Violia) and grant money for universities.
I wonder who is behind Al Gore and his global warming theory?
7:20 AM, July 10, 2007
Seems some people think Toowoomba is in China.
Excerpt from Associated Press:
City in China May Ban Anonymous Web Posts
9 July 2007
A southern Chinese city is considering a new rule banning anonymous Web postings after residents used the Internet to successfully halt construction of a massive chemical factory, a report said Friday.
A Xiamen official told local reporters the proposed regulation bars anonymous postings online and requires Web sites to approve all postings, the Beijing Youth Daily reported.
Xiamen would be the first city in China to require the use of real names online, Tian Feng, the vice director of the Xiamen Municipal Industry and Commerce Bureau, was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
Last month, plans for a chemical plant in Xiamen were suspended after residents sent nearly 1 million text messages to friends and family, urging the government to abandon the $1.4 billion paraxylene plant project because of its alleged health and environmental risks.
One widely circulated message said the resulting devastation would be like "an atomic bomb in Xiamen."
Mobile phone test messages and Internet postings were used to organize peaceful rallies that caught the attention of bloggers nationwide and helped push Beijing to pressure the city to suspend work on the factory. The project is undergoing a new environmental impact assessment ordered by the local government.
"Following the opposition to the PX project, the government felt it should exert some control over Internet content," Tian was quoted as saying.
But the report quoted Lin Congming, vice propaganda chief of the Xiamen Communist Party committee, as saying there is no relation between the chemical plant and the regulation. He also noted the regulation was only a draft.
News of the proposed regulation quickly drew fire from the South Metropolis News -- one of China's most aggressive and outspoken sources for news.
The Guangzhou paper quoted a legal professor as saying that Xiamen had no right to legislate such changes.
"Only the National People's Congress has the right to legislate on this issue," He Bing of the China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing was quoted as saying on the paper's Web site.
8:45 AM, July 16, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home