Water Futures 2.0 - the $100m question ...

Mr Flanagan has put his reputation on the line.

See - Council Committee meetings - 21-22 August 2007.

In his view, the failed Water Futures recycled water plant can be revived and built for somewhere between $90-100 million.

Is he right?

Seems unlikely as he's used some pretty huge assumptions once again.

His number is based on: "Recent preliminary costings carried out by consultants under the SEQ Regional Water Supply Strategy Study indicates that a stand alone PRW Plant in Toowoomba would cost in the order of $90 to $100M."

This assumes no evaporation ponds.

Mr Flanagan explains:

"Given Council's negotiations to supply effluent to New Acland Coal Mine are proceeding, costs of a pipeline to Acland would be met by NAC."

But aren't New Acland Coal interested in waste bore water from the Oakey bore field?

Five bores with a combined allocation of 750 megalitres are being assessed while discussions are being held with New Acland Mine to take the salty wastewater for industrial use.

See - Oakey bores to put further nail in Water Futures coffin.

They have previously stated:

"We have yet to agree with Toowoomba City Council as to the final make up of the Class A+ quality recycled water ... however it is our understanding that the water would be of the highest quality standard for recycled water."

Doesn't sound like the RO waste stream.

And where's the commitment from New Acland Coal to take the RO waste stream and pay for the pipeline?

One of Mr Flanagan's big assumptions.

The reference to: "Recent preliminary costings carried out by consultants under the SEQ Regional Water Supply Strategy Study indicates that a stand alone PRW Plant in Toowoomba would cost in the order of $90 to $100M." is interesting.

It's costing Premier Beattie over $2 billion to build 3 (larger) recycled water plants and associated pipelines but Mr Flanagan's will only cost around $100 million (assuming no evaporation ponds).

That must be a very interesting preliminary costing.

Perhaps he'd like to share it with the ratepayers and allow some independent costing. That seems unlikely - during Water Futures 1.0 any mention of independent costing of the recycled water proposal sent Council scurrying into their bunker.

Mr Flanagan also suggests asking the Federal and State governments for $40 million each with Toowoomba ratepayers to pay $20 million.

He notes that funding from the Federal government will be difficult because their funds are almost fully committed.

He fails to note that the State government has said on numerous occasions that they are not interested in Toowoomba building a stand alone recycled water plant. Why would they give any funding in that case?

So that's $80 million in funding in doubt. And $80 million extra Toowoomba ratepayers would have to borrow (assuming the $100 million project cost is accurate and no cost overruns).

He also fails to mention the other Federal funding conditions from Water Futures 1.0:

Water Futures Toowoomba

- The Project must satisfy Queensland Government processes under the Local Government Subsidy Scheme.

- All necessary Queensland Government approvals including health and safety approvals, including the development of a health regulatory regime for indirect potable water reuse are required to be developed to cover this and any future indirect potable reuse proposals in Queensland.

- The health regime is required to be developed with regard to clause 92(i) of the National Water Initiative.

- Appropriate Gowrie-Oakey Creek system regional plans need to be prepared or existing plans modified to take into account reasonable consideration of the impact of the project on the downstream water users on Gowrie-Oakey Creek.

- A management plan for the Hampton groundwater aquifer will also be required.

So it's assumed that the Gowrie-Oakey Creek farmers and Hampton irrigators are left out - if we ignore them no-one will notice.

Another of those assumptions.

And then there's the issue of what amount of recycled water will be produced.

No comments on whether sufficient recycled water could be produced although cancelling the pipeline to the Hampton irrigators gives everyone a hint.

Ultimately, the question of whether a recycled water plant could be built for $100 million and whether it should be built should not be left to Mr Flanagan.

It should be left to the voters.

In July 2006, 62% of voters said NO.

In March 2008, voters (of the expanded region) get to have their vote once again on whether Toowoomba should proceed with a recycled water plant.

Regardless of the action taken by Councillors between now and next March, it is the voters who will ultimately decide the fate of Water Futures 2.0 ...