Good to see!
Does it have to be at this level only? Have smaller units or even individual houses no part to play, making communities or families responsible for their own welfare? In the UK villages or subdivisions of suburbia are being built with electricity from solar, heating mostly be better design, water by recycling and some food from associated vegetable plots. This shifts the power and the responsibility to the community or individuals, seemingly a more democratic division of power.

I think this is a massive waste of money and an egotistical indulgence on the part of Toowoomba City Council. It is not necessary to treat the water to this stage because primary treated sewerage has at least $9 worth of nitrogen per megalitre and a lot of soaps (alkalis) that will save on the amount of lime needed on acidic soils. In short, to a farmer it is already a value added asset.

And it is my understanding that local farmers have already offered to swap their clean allocation of irrigation water for Toowoomba's value added water. But this was either ignored or declined.

Instead, a bunch of narcissists are basking in their 15 minutes of fame, building a costly monument with federal funds when a much simpler and cleverer, low-tech, solution is right under their nose.

Indeed, there would be no need to swap water because the farmer could simply loan the water to the council on the proviso that they send it back to the farmer when he needed it, with the nutrients added as just and equitable rent. The city would only need to pay for the pipes and the pumping costs from and to the nearby farmers, and some additional storage to deal with the ebbs and flows in demand.

Toowoomba is perfectly situated for such a scheme, having the right mix of urban population and surrounding agriculturaL uses. The 130,000 residents, in 50,000 households will use 12,000 MgL a year. This would reduce to 9,000 MgL if all houses captured their shower water for flushing toilets.

Irrigators in the area are likely to use 4-6 MgL per hectare on their crops or pastures so the entire water needs of the city could be delivered from only 1,500 to 2,000 hectares of irrigated land. The city itself is in the order of 5,000 hectares and is bigger than the irrigated area needed to loan the water. And household water tanks could replenish the water that is lost on urban gardens etc.

The Seven Barriers to Water Futures - Toowoomba

1. Public opposition

A substantial proportion of Toowoomba's residents oppose the use of recycled water for drinking in Toowoomba. A petition against the project has gathered over 10,000 signatures.

2. Political opposition

Many politicians are against the project in its current form. Politicians in favour of recycling water believe it should be the community's decision whether they wish to drink recycled sewage.

3. Councillor opposition

Several Toowoomba City Councillors oppose the project and are critical of the Council's handling of the issue.

4. Council's PR nightmare

The Council's promotional materials have misled the public - claiming that water discharged into Cooby Dam is pure when it is expected to contain at least 30mg/litre of dissolved material.

5. Continuing health concerns

The long-term effects of ingesting the chemicals which remain in the recycled sewage are unknown so is the potential effect of a combination of chemicals.

To date, the Council has not confirmed the testing regime for the over 87,000 chemicals in existence which may be in the recycled sewage.

6. Financial concerns

The costings in the NWC application are at best preliminary. Should Acland Coal not take the RO waste stream, Council will require 600 hectares near Oakey for evaporation ponds at an estimated ADDITIONAL cost of almost $70 million. The Council's preferred alternative - using only 68 hectares at an additional cost of $15 million - is regarded by CH2M Hill as having "significant unknowns" and being "water quality dependent".

7. Long-term concerns

Under the NWC application, Toowoomba residents will need to cut their water consumption by a further 20%. The project at best defers the need for a new water source. Also, the projected life expectancy of the Acland Coal mine means that, even if the RO waste stream is provided to the mine, an alternative for dealing with the RO waste stream will be required upon mine closure, costing at least the $70 million estimated amount set out in the NWC application.

The Toowoomba City Council needs to remember when government demonstrates its disinclination to heed public opinion ,lobby groups and the general public have to put their message in a form that most governments readily respond to- that which threatens electoral survival and this message will come loud and clear.
They do not want to be Australia's EXPERIMENT!!

I think reclaiming water from sewage for drinking is a marvellous idea and we should follow worldwide precedents.

In Singapore they recover water from the city's greywater, not lumpy flushed water or hospital or industrial waste, these run in separate sewers. They treat the greywater to a very high standard and then don't use 99% of it in the reticulation system.

In Windhoek, Namibia they reclaim water from effluent and then pipe it to shanty towns standpipes.

In Orange County, California they propose (2007) to use reclaimed water as a barrier to seawater entry into aquifers and have seen the need to refine the process using RO because chemicals and pharmaceuticals have percolated into the aquifers using older technology. Public outreach on the proposal is only now beginning.

There is no other place on the planet other than Singapore, Winhoek and Orange County even attempting to reclaim drinking water from effluent.

If you know of one please post a response here to make me feel more assured.

This batty (spelt Beattie) idea is inspired by a government that has failed to keep infrastructure growing with the population.

Toowoomba has written in its NWC funding application that it is to be a demonstration plant for later implementation in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The term "living laboratory" is used and Beattie has promised "whole of government support".

I think Brisbane should try it first. Toowoomba has plenty of alternative sources of cheaper, better, environmentally friendly water.

Could someone please enlighten me as to how many dams Johhny "Bonsai" Howard has constructed in the previous decade, I know Bob Hawke made the huge Burdekin Falls Dam a reality 20 years ago, but am not aware of anything since.

Of course those who can afford to should have their own water tank, to relieve the pressure on water usage, however the big picture still rests with government on this most basic of human needs.

Untill we elect a government that is prepared to take it's responsibility, water will continue to be an underdone political notion.

Bonsai is a little bush.