This just reinforces the notion of Queenslanders as the dumb and dumber state.
Queensland - Dumb
Toowoomba - Dumber

In the sure and certain knowledge that they would reject it, plans a foot?

I read the whole blog or is that bog and the only pro-environmental statement I could find was part of the last sentence:
". . . the Mayor Di Thorley is now reduced to just praying for rain."
That sentence faces up to reality. Yes the reality is that rain is not falling for what we are doing to the planet.
The reality is there is too little rain for the number of people.
i suggest Jennifer Marohasy re-write her blog again using the new heading "Let us pray for rain"
She then faces, did I spell "faces" right up to the fact we are being over populated for the amount of rain we have. She says that Toowoomba is too far from the coast to have desalination. Hey Jennifer, how much land is there west of Toowoomba before we get to the West Australian coast.
If we get Toowoomba people to drink filtered sewage, what do we do then?
As the population increases the percentage of sewage water to fresh water will have to be increased, won't it, until we are drinking pure filtered sewage.
Then when we get to that future point in a decade or two, what do we drink then?
Fresh air!

So now people should not have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to drink treated sewerage? Forget that democracy nonsense, the PM should have given the Toowoomba council the money to get on with it?

While the treated water might be safe to drink, why wasn’t it suggested that the treated water be used initially on public and private gardens where it would clearly be accepted? After all, most water is used on gardens, in laundries, bathrooms and dish washing, not for drinking.

The Mayor and other pro-pee drinkers have been public relations morons, who obviously had not the faintest idea how people might react to drinking their own – and others’ - waste. On the others side, the anti-waste drinkers fully exploited the natural disgust most people have for drinking treated sewerage if they are not aware of the safety of the process.

Australians are only just getting used to the idea of using recycled water on their gardens. They are not yet ready to drink the stuff.

Softly softly catchee monkey. This episode is just another blunder in the saga of hopelessly amateur local government.

Ms Marohasy speculates "These farmers were supported by the Queensland National Party and it is possible that it was lobbying by this alliance that resulted in the Prime Minister insisting on a referendum."

There is no doubt that about that possibility. On the website of The Brisbane Institute, Jim Forbes observes:

" But also unlike Goulburn, Toowoomba's funding is contingent. Turnbull's colleague and local Federal MP Ian Macfarlane initially supported Water Futures but recanted in the face of the Berghofer campaign (along with several councillors and three local State Nationals parliamentarians). Provision of federal funding is now contingent on a 'Yes' vote being carried in a plebiscite to be held under the Local Government Act on 29 July 2006."

Toowoomba still has a chance to lead the way. It will probably be the first city in Australia to have $4 / kilolitre water, compared to the $1 to $1.50 / kilolitre we are used to paying. If the average water user in Toowoomba cuts his water usage slightly, they will still only be paying about $1600 per household per year for water against about $550 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The people of Toowoomba might think drinking, what they believe to be cleaner water, is worth the extra money.

Water using industries in the area probably don't have as much flexibility but it doesn't seem like industry campaigned very hard for the recycling plan. Maybe the $4 / kL fee will open up opportunities for other water users in the area to buy recycled water from the Toowoomba Sewage Treatment plant for a lower fee.

Lets hope the environment does not suffer in Toowoomba's efforts to get the water it needs.

This story still has a few more chapters to be written.

Well done Ms Marohasy and OLO on getting this article out so quickly after the election.

Drink Water!!

Do you people know what fish do in it!?

I am constantly amazed at the level of blindness exhibited by our leaders. Here is a PERFECT example of our society overspending our allotted pocket money. We have a limited amount of water but they still trot out the same old Mantra of "growth, growth and more growth" no matter what the consequences. The idiotic former city fathers brought this situation on the comunity by rampant development with no or little control and now they do not want to face up to the results of their actions.

When are we going to learn to vote for a set of leaders who will grasp the nettle and set in motion a controlled reduction in population to take the pressure off "the environment" before we end up like Ethiopia

Narcissist threw a line in to pooh pooh the idea.
"Do you people know what fish do in it!?"
I will bite just what in the rod and real world do fish do it in?
Do they scrunch or fold when they fin ish near the tail end?
Let's all just swallow and gulp his line down.
Water!
Water is odorless, tasteless and colourless.
Is that what sewage-filtered water is, is it?
The sewage is filtered and then it is subjected to radiation to kill any other microbes.
Just because those microbes are dead it does not mean they disappear.
They do disappear when you drink it.
Why is the sewage-filtered water added to rainwater 25percent to 75 percent?
Only 25percent means it is not safe, otherwise People would drink 100 percent sewage-filtered water and save the rain water in our dams for the garden.

So the "NO" case won the day. What now - the people of Toowomba still don't have any extra water.The council should do nothing, let Berghoffer and crew say what they will do to provide water for the people of Toowoomba. Run a referendum again in a couple of years and see if they still would rather go dry than drink perfectly safe recycled water.

My mother in law lives in Bendigo and is adamant she wouldn't drink recycled water. But she has been to London many times - no-one has told her that she drank recycled water there and didn't even know!

The water recycling issue is a very good example of three issues
Democracy;
Politics;
and the physical world.

All three issues (hopefully in the case of democracy and the real world) will be around for some time.

As people within these three we have to find out how to get to a solution. There is no perfect way.

The people of Toowoomba have been forced (by the politics)to adopt one approach to discovering the way forward.

I am sure once the economics of the physical world make their influence felt (maybe even by pricing water rights)other paths will be developed.

One must sympathise with the local council for being hung out to dry by the State and Federal Governments; of course that happens when you are not recognised by the Constitution.

Another brilliant bit of John Howard mean and tricky, he knows plebecites or referenda are almost never passed unless support comes from all sides. (Previous form with the Republic Referendum)

The Toowoomba council put forward various "solutions" but the Federal Govt. would only fund the recycling option. Suddenly the politics kick in and Howard did not want to be "blamed" for making people drink sewage so lets have the unwinnable vote and then everyone else gets their knickers in a knot.

Water is an odourless, colourless, TASTELESS liquid. So if you can taste the water you drink, do you know what is in it?

Re: the water thing in Toowoomba. There are a few meatworks around Toowoomba that depend on using copious amounts of water. When all those workers lose their jobs because of No campaign's emotional carry on and misinformation (and old Clive's desire for validation), well let's see these "useful idiots" put their money where their mouth is and guarantee to pay lost wages and prop up all the small businesses that go under.

This is National Party area. Past local "developers'" council and the local State Members are responsible for failing to build the infrastructure needed for a reliable water supply.

Toowoomba was once a vessel overflowing with potental, but alas the developers emptied the vessel into their own pockets and now we're high and dry.

If recycled water is "pee" than water from Cobby Creek is a dead cow, dead pigeon, dead ducks, dead snakes, dead lizards, cowsh*t, dead wallbies, wallaby sh*t, chemicals from farms upstream and greasy street runoff from towns upstream juice. Rotting corpse and animal sh*t juice.

How much water does your toilet use? There is alternatives such as found at:- http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs27.htm

“A joint initiative of the Australian Government and the design and construction industries.”

Then there is all that showering & bathing and wipeing it on the towel!
"Life Gets Teagous,Don't It!"
Toowoomba can be dry one minute, then seven inches of rainfall in one afternoon, & not a drop saved in the water tank, because your council has refused your application to erect one, or the darn 'water composting system' required by the said council cost something like$15,000.00. on top of rest of new house costs.

There is a silver lining to the NO vote, as regressive and small-minded as that vote may have been.

Recycling water from sewage works was never the best way to provide drinking water anyway, albeit one better than building more dams to sataisfy an ever-growing demand.

The bald fact is there is adequate drinking water throughout Australia, even in the most drought prone areas. Our only problem is that we use good drinking water for such ridiculous purposes as flushing toilets and watering parks and gardens.

The national drinking water dilemma will not be solved until all Australian households are retrofitted with a separate water feed lines. Whereby the recycled water line is used to flush toilets and wash clothes - our biggest domestic use - while the existing supply lines are reserved mainly for potable drinking water.

The biggest scandal of all is that entire new suburbs are still being built with just a single feed line. Retrofitting is much more costly than putting in the necessary pipes at the time of construction.

Change the building code now. No new house should be built anywhere in Australian suburbia without a recyled feed line being installed there and then.

It may not have that much to do with Toowoomba, but I want to know, what is the difference in the treatment system between waste water, & sea water.
Both appear to require an Osmosis process, which should be similar in cost, & energy consumption.
This being the case, why use waste water, where sea water is available.

Good one Gecko.....

We should say no, as one day we will have to say yes, but for now lets live in th3e Best Country in the world and love our tap drinking water.

Hasbeen, the reason it is not feasible to use sea water in Toowoomba is that the city is on top of the Great Dividing Range, well above sea level. It is expensive to pipe water across the country. I am from Toowoomba and voted yes. I believe most people voted no due to simple ignorance. (Similar to the interest rate ignorance of the last federal election). I heard numerous rumours spread by the no voters, such as: everyone in Toowoomba will get AIDS, men will lose their genitals because of the birth control pill, and everyone will get typhoid, etcetera. Unfortunately, most people are gullible idiots that are easily manipulated by people with vested interests (the financier of the no campaign is a property developer) and have no respect for science. It is now the responsibility of the no voters to devise another solution to the problem, because ultimately, having no water is much more detrimental to health than drinking recycled water.

P.S. London receives less rainfall per annum than Brisbane.

Ah! The bitter realisation will dawn (most likely too late) - drinking treated effluent is better than drinking nothing. It seems that the only way for Toowoomba to get their recycling programme is to completely run out of water.... although it's a bit late to worry then.

Hasbeen -

Toowoomba is 140km distant and 600 metres above the seawater. It takes a lot of energy and money to pump it up the hill. Toowomba's wastewater has to be treated before it goes in the river or to the irrigators, so you can't compare raw sewage and seawater, you have to compare treated sewage and seawater. Treated sewage is a lot easier and cheaper to clean up than sea water, so it is cheaper even in a city like Sydney which is right next to the seawater.

Dr. Marohasy says that about 7000 MegaLitres per year are needed immediately and 12,500 Mega Litres per year are needed in the long term. If the price increases by $3 per kilolitre due to the vote, that will be about $20 million per year in the short term and $60 million per year in the long term, out of the Toowoomba economy. They will most likely also have permanent water restrictions.

Maybe it is worth it to them.

"Water" actually recycled urine!

The World Health Organisation (WHO) today issued an unprecedented global alert for the entire world’s population to avoid drinking water which, it has found, is actually recycled urine.

The Director-General of WHO, Lee Jong-wook, was visibly shaken as he read out a statement. "It is my solemn duty to inform the people of the world that WHO scientists, operating independently in over 80 countries, have confirmed our worst fears. They have reached consensus that the water we drink, whether it is comes from a tap, a sealed bottle, or straight from a well or river, is actually recycled urine."

The urine-water link has been blamed on the so-called hydrosphere effect, a radical hypothesis in which water from your toilet is flows out into the ocean and evapourates into the sky; from where scientists believe it falls as rain upon mountaintops, and make its way via rivers directly back into your household tap.

Said Mr Lee, "the hydrosphere effect is so far out of control there seems little chance of turning back the tide. We took samples from thousands of patients and found their bodies were riddled with water, in some cases as high as 75%. It’s too late for us, but maybe not for our children."

The finding has set public health officials scrambling for alternatives. But AMA Secretary Dr. Robyn Mason said that water is in everything we drink. "We tested fruit juice, milk and even beer, and found water content as high as 96%," she said. According to the AMA, safer alternatives include cask-strength whisky (29% water, 1% barley, 70% alcohol) and cat's milk, which has far less water than dairy varieties.

Some have expressed hope of obtaining super-pure water from deep aquifers or Antarctic ice. But Mr Lee has poured water on these plans, stating that even the deepest groundwater sources are comprised of ancient number ones from prehistoric fish.

"There’s no escape. And don’t even think of swimming in the ocean – there’s a reason it’s salty you know. I’d rather take my chances in a pool full of primary school kids."

“Safe water yields in Toowoomba were exceeded in 1998 and the population has kept growing”.

The demand kept exceeding the safe supply rate and hence reducing the drought safety margin at a steady rate. And nothing was done about it until…lo and behold… a drought!!

Talk about the ultimate bad management – failing to secure the supply of one of the most fundamental resources and thus condemning the entire community to water restrictions, stress, disillusionment, in-fighting, etc, etc, with the onset of the first dry period after the safe supply rate had been violated. How hopeless is that?!

And who was mayor while this was happening? Could it have been Clive Berghofer by any chance??

John howard would have insisted on a referendum on sewerage drinking (there are numerous methods of sewerage recycling) for the same reason councils all over Australia and, indeed, much of the world, held referendums on the addition of flouride to drinking water.

That is, democratic precedent. So rather than whipping up a neat little political conspiracy, we should be asking why Goulburn didn't hold a referendum when every other council in the country has held referendums on an issue of immediate concern to voters and their water?

And did it ever occur to our little nest of metrocentrics here that the reason National Party MPs etc opposed this over priced and underconsidered scheme is that they, and their primarily rural constituency have been doing just fine on tank water for the past century?

And lets not kid ourselves here by assuming that the quoted $68 million for the plant was a firm number. For if the record of other champions of big ticket infrastructure is any guide, this number is likely to have been $200 million by the time it was actually started.

Remember the Brisbane Lord Moron's initial quote of $1 billion for his tunnel? As soon as the contract was approved the cost then blew out to $2 billion and finally came in at $3 billion on the signed contract. And all in the space of two years. And each time he was exposed he simply said that he would just have to eat humble pie on this one.

So what would Thorley have said to the voters of Toowoomba when the cost of her memorial pyramid blew out? Probably something on the lines of, "OK I will eat humble pie but you get the $hit sandwich".

Excellent article Jennifer. Seems to me that an opportunity was missed to ask a supplementary question in the referendum. Now that the people of Toowooba has banned the use of recycled water they need to revisit the water supply issue and given the chance to look into the core question of di-hydrogen oxide.

Dangerous Properties of Di-Hydrogen Oxide

1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. its accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.
8. its solid form can cause severe accidents due slipping

The people of Toowoomba would surely be in favour of strict control or total elimination of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide if they knew all the facts.

Lugwig, you might like to be a little more informed about Toowoomba Mayors.

Mr Clive Berghofer served as an alderman on Toowoomba City Council from 1973 to 1982 and was Mayor from 1982 till he resigned in 1992.
Mr Ross Miller was Mayor from 1993 to 1996.
Mr Tony Bourke was Mayor from 1997 to 2000.
Ms Di Thorley has been Mayor since the year 2000

Just in case you can't add up it is 14 years since Mr Clive Berghofer was mayor. You might also like to know that if it had not been for the good management and future planning of previous councils, particularly when Mr Berghofer was a member of the council from 1973 - 1992, Toowoomba would have run dry long ago.

Ok, Everyone has voted here that Clive Berghoffer influenced the vote.
So, right now, today if we had a nationawide vote all Australians would vote to drink filtered effluent.
It is quite obvious that 62 percent of Australians would do that.
I bet that even 10 percent would do to the toilet and drink it straight out of the toilet bowl.
Is there anyone who thinks it would be more than 10 percent?

Alex, in my post I excluded Toowoomba as a desalination prospect.
What I realy want to know is, the difference, if any, in the process of osmosis of sea water, & waste water.
I have run a small desal plant, on a resort island, which does not make me an expert. However, it appears to me that the process is the same, regardless of feed water used.
This would indicate the same cost for either process.
I am still hoping that someone who does know, will advise us.
Are you surprised I don't trust government department statements on the subject?

How long could you last in the urbs without water?

4 days or more? What then?

What kind of anarchy would ensure with the total loss of water?

I think these are the critical questions not being answered.

The 'Big Question' is not why John Howard insisted Toowoomba vote on the issue of waste water recycling but what should happen when water reaches a critical level of depletion.

Another vote? I don't think so. This is matter for state emergency powers and security.

The questions surrounding what to do to prevent acts of terrorism on our existing water stocks have not yet surfaced.

Ahhh! glenwriter! you say that 25 per cent recycled drinking water is not safe, because people would drink 100 per cent otherwise.

I do not mean to insult you personally, rather this comment is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There is a massive weight of scientific evidence in favour of the recycling, and all there is against it is a scare campaign based around the 'yuck' factor.

You can point out as many science mistakes as you want. Yes, thalidomide was terrible, and yes, science has done bad things. But does that mean we just turn our back and ignore what scientific evidence we have? Because ultimately its all we have.

The reason why people aren't drinking 100 per cent recycled water is that they couldn't even be convinced to drink 25 per cent recycled drinking water. You've pointed out the prime example of a catch 22 - Toowoomba was the first place in Australia to consider it.

You say, don't drink 25 per cent, no ones drinking 100 per cent. So how can they say drink 100 per cent, when no one will drink 25 per cent?

Recycled water.. good grief. The water in dams has fish and cattle crap all through it. Even the water in rainwater tanks goes through whatever crap is on the roof. All water is recycled, there's only so much out there. you can't just make more.

The reason for having 25 per cent, was a publicity thing. It was about pumping perfectly safe drecycled rinking water back into the dam, which does not have drinkable quality - so it would be refined again, and hopefully the public would be able to accept that. Much of it was being wasted through evaporation, but that was the price they were paying for PR. I guess it wasn't high enough.

Rainier,
Once upon a time "The government" and "the people" were the same thing.
In fact President Abraham Lincoln said it was the same thing and it became a definition of what democractic government was. Governmen by the people.
That is no longer so. It is government by the politicians over the people.
You can not say "our" water stocks.
It is the government's water stocks.
When the government runs out of water the people of course will try toi stop themselves from dying of thirst.
The only way would for them to attack the government and trhe government to stop the people from getting the sparse trickles of water left on the botom of the dams.

Well, what happens when the well runs dry ?
Everyone just packs up and goes somewhere else.

What else can you do when you turn the tap on and nothing comes out.
Sydney is not all that far away from the same situation.
The dams are down to 40% and falling at between 0.5% and 0.3 % a week.
So how nay weeks is that ? Sure there will be some rain but what if it doesn't ?

Every home should be fitted with a rainwater tank and the water could be used for toilets & washing etc.
The other requirement would be that no more development applications for homes be accepted by councils.
After all we cannot keep accepting 1000 new residents a week.

Leigh, if you think it was a good idea for John Howard to insist that Toowoomba vote on recycled water, why didn't he do the same for the whole of Australia before imposing unpopular legislation such as 'Workchoices' on us? Personally, I have more faith in Toowoomba Council to deliver safe recycled water than I have in the fairness of Workchoices.

That said, I don't believe that government initiatives should be subject to referenda, except where required by the Commonwealth Constitution. Howard should have left the decision to Toowoomba Council and let them get on with it.

Hasbeen -

Toowoomba treated effluent has 800 mg/L of total dissolved solids (or salts) http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/water/toowoomba_directions.html
and sea water has 35,000 mg/L or 40 times as much. It costs more to get 40 times as much salt out of the water.

Thanks amber for the recent mayoral history.

You wrote;

“You might also like to know that if it had not been for the good management and future planning of previous councils, particularly when Mr Berghofer was a member of the council from 1973 - 1992, Toowoomba would have run dry long ago.”

I don’t know about Clive Berghofer’s reign, but good management and future planning was obviously terribly lacking in some if not all previous councils going back many years. Of course there were some improvements to water provision as the town grew. But it is now blatantly evident that this went hand in hand with the growth of the town, and did not lead to an improvement in water security when it was really needed. So in that sense, the councils certainly did not practice good management and proper future planning.

Thanks ericc, thats what I wanted to know. I knew todays treated effluent was reasonable stuff, but had no idea how good.

Adolf Hitler shortly before invading Poland:

"In insisting on a referendum and then seeing it fail, The German People will have increased the level of participatory democracy at the expense of good governance.

Ze war begins tomorrow

... Zeik Heil!"

Does anyone here seriously believe for example that a plebiscite on 'building homes for 100,000 new immigrants into Sydney every year and probably garages for an extra 50,000 or so new cars to go with them', would come back as a 'Yes, go ahead'?

The fact that NSW Labor will do this anyway is a nothing short of a criminal act. That isn't good governance its feudalism.

There are clearly some things that must NOT be included in electoral mandates. There is a major flaw in our system of government here, in our federal constitution, and it needs to be sorted out before we go much further into this third millenium.

The spectre of feudalism and subsequent wars that scourged most of the second millenium must not be allowed to reemerge and take root in the third.

"So what went wrong? Why did the referendum fail?" Because we're talking about Queensland, silly.

"John Howard has increased the level of participatory democracy at the expense of good governance." Cunning as a rat, with his own party on the nose in QLD, he comes out smelling roses to the locals and can't be fingered by the wider electorate for this forseeable result. Toowoomba ain't that cosmopolitan and he knows it.

Take heart though Jennifer. The residents of Toowoomba, and for that matter all of us, will drink it when we're ready.

Kaep

I agree with you on this. Having a referendum on water recycling was a total farce as an increasing population guarantees that it will be needed at some point in the future. Having a national referendum on immigration rates would allow far more accurate planning for the most cost effective water supply strategies to meet future demand.

Yes, wouldn’t it be interesting to have a referendum on immigration.

It is well and truly time to bring the whole immigration cum population growth cum sustainability subject out into the very profile public arena, in lieu of a referendum.

I would have though that the water issue, as huge as it is right across the country, would have triggered this by now.

Well…. maybe it is starting to. Maybe the first steps in a switch towards an overall sustainable society will be the positive spinoff of this resource crisis.

Here’s hoping.

It seems no one here sees the warnings.
Toowoomba has had its referendum. That decision should stand no matter what.
That is democracy. But we don't have democracy.
A State referendum will overrule Toowoomba's decision
The next refereundum will be rigged to get the 'yes' vote no matter what the people think.
It is the government that is important.
The people are of lesser importance.
The people of Toowoomab are of lesser importance.
They WILL drink filtered sewage.

With all due respect to the writer I think the 'Big Questions' are all of those that remain unanswered. The vote held in Toowoomba was held in a very 'slap stick' way. The Yes team hardly ran any credible and logical arguments making it too easy for the No team to rely on the 'Poo factor'.

After weeks of watching the debate on the news in Brisbane I am no closer to being able to answer the following:

(a) What guarantees are there that infectious diseases such as Hepatitis wont be transmitted-afterall oysters in NSW catchments have become infected by the introduction of sewerage;
(b) Why does the government plan to introduce 25% recyled water as opposed to the 10% used in other countries (ie US, Europe);
(c) How is it so hard to direct all recyled water to industry and all dam water to households.

Yes the above questions are very simple ones and while I have no answers to them I wont be voting yes. However I would easily vote yes should our elected governments decide to stop patronising us with 'scientific facts' and start answering some real questions.

wre - I can't speak for Toowoomba Council but from basic wastewater engineering principles:

a) Pathogens and diseases like Hepatitis are filtered out of the water and then the water is disinfected with Ultraviolet light. Following filtering and disinfection, tests are run on the water to see if any pathogens or other living things are still in the water. The Hepatitis and other diseases that have been reported in Oysters are from polluters dumping raw untreated sewage into waterways with Oyster leases.

b)The 25% is based on the demand for water in Toowoomba and the amount of rainfall. If it rains hard and the dams fill up around Toowoomba the percentage of recycled water would be less than 1% unitl the dam levels dropped again. If Toowoomba residents cut their water usage they could probably get down to 10% on average like many European recycling schemes. The 25% is just an indication that a top up is needed to meet Toowoomba's demand. Astronauts drink 100% recycled sewage.

c) Industry only needs 1% of Toowoomba's water http://www.toowoombawater.com.au/introduction/waterusebysector.html. Most of the demand is from commercial and residential users. If commercial and residential users cut their demand for water and there was no new development in Toowoomba bringing more water users to town, then this would work. Having separate pipes for recycled water and dam water would also increase the cost.

In general, I agree with GlenWriter. If Toowoomba residents want to pay more for water so that they don't have to drink recycled sewage that should be their democratic right. My fear is that they will demand expensive pipelines, pumping and other infrastructure and won't want to foot the bill. They may also want to build more dams that won't be effecive, but will be expensive and will impact the environment. If they are happy to simply pay more to bring the water from further away, that should be their right.

Ultraviolet light hey.
So what if the people who drink the water get cancer.
I suppose you can then send in your guantee by post to the council and they will send out a doctor.

wrt asked about redistributing treated water to industry.
A complete set of additional pipelines ?
A very very expensive operation. So expensive as to be financially impossible.
Also as sewage all seems to end up at lower levels, simply because they are gravity systems usually, the treated water is at the lower level and would have to be pumpted uphill, another very expensive exercise.
All in all its pushing you know what uphill, literally !

Ericc, there are very limited areas of queensland that don't have a use, in their area, for all the water available, in the area.
You may be worried that Toowoomba people will not want to pay for the infrastructure to bring water from somewhere else.
I am worried about the damage caused to that "somewhere else".
Once their water is gone to Toowoomba, the economic opportunity that water offered, is gone.
Will Toowoomba, or Brisbane for that matter, want to pay the "somewhere else" for that lost opportunity, or is this another example of how the bush shares with the city. If the city want it, we must give it up.

Farmers on the Logan river have had applications for irrigation licenses on hold for 6 years, while the Logan basin water resources plan was developed. Now it is out, with the discovery of unallocated water in the system. Great, now they can get those licenses.
Like hell, that water is bound for Brisbane. Did you ever REALY think we'd let you waste it out here in the bush growing crops? Its much more use in Brisbane, on a bl**dy football field.

I thank the posts above for answering some of my simple questions about recycled water- from what I underrstand having now researched the matter a little further, there is very little research that actually confirms long term exposure to recyled water is without risks. NASA itself has stated this is one of the big question marks about sustaining life in outer space.

However do we have a choice? Running out of water isnt like running out of milk. I cant understand the constant economic rationalisation in this debate given the fact water is not a luxury. The costs associated with piping and pumping are extreme- but what about the costs associated with trucking water if we run out (and fuel costs continues to rise!).

It would be my proposal that we start investing in new sets of pipes, rain water tanks become mandatory, desalination plants become operative, recyled water is pumped into power stations etc and we all stop saying 'its too hard'. While economics do dictate the order of the day, we may all just have to come to terms with the fact there is no choice.

All Toowoomba has to do is shift all further housing and commercial development into the water catchment. This will lift the yield from each hectare of developed land from 5% to 50% of rainfall and also deliver an inflow into the existing dam from even minor falls.

Nothing improves catchment yield like roof tops, pavement and sealed roads. But I suppose after months of ridiculing the people who had the nerve to suspect that there may be unknown problems with drinking sewerage, the same people will claim the cost of bringing storm runoff to drinking standard is too much.

There are loads of alternate water solutions but they are pretty hard to see if you have your head in the paper bag of another agenda.

For inland cities such as Toowoomba the solutions are very difficult and expensive. Coastal cities and towns do have a doable alternative to recycling in desalination but not cheap. No solution anywhere is going to be cheap.
My suggestion is for water desalination plants big enough to do the job if running say half the time. The only valid objection I have seen to desalination plants is the power requirement, greenhouse gases etc.
My solution is to add enough wind generators to supply the desalination plant via the grid.
When the wind blows the plant runs, when the wind stops the plant stops.
Now this is all expensive but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than moving people out of Sydney, Brisbane etc, which is the only other viable alternative.
All this will need to be done before peak oil arrives on the scene in perhaps the next ten years. After that the economy will be too stretched to be able to invest in such large infrastructure projects.

Bazz, I have never been able to see the point of renewable energy generation, when you had to have a conventional plant, fired up, & running, ready to take over, when conditions required.
To dedicate them to water supply, with no backup, makes sense, although the water would be expensive. It would be equitable if the cost was quarantined to to the water used in that area, however I expect it would find its way onto my power bill. And I don't even get town water.
Remember the Ambulance levy? They could have put it on drivers licences, with equity. To try to hide it, they put it on the power bill, where some pay it 5 times, but many don't pay at all. I hate being so cynical, but I've been trained by experts.

“All this will need to be done before peak oil arrives on the scene in perhaps the next ten years. After that the economy will be too stretched to be able to invest in such large infrastructure projects.”

Bazz, I appreciate your ideas, but rising energy prices will not only make the implementation of such facilities unviable, it will make any existing ones unviable as well, or hugely expensive. And I think peak oil will come home to roost in a much shorter timeframe than the next ten years.

I think we need to abandon all water-provision schemes that are energy-intensive….. and fall back on the old notion of limiting the overall demand (stabilising population), implementing the best water-use efficiency measures we can…..and encouraging a redistribution of population if those measures still fail to cater for the existing populace in towns such as Toowoomba.

The only thing I can add to that, is that the capture or stormwater should be considered a viable option for increasing Toowoomba’s water provision, off of rooves and into tanks and from roads into storage ponds (where does runoff from roads end up now?).

Ludwig wrote:
Bazz, I appreciate your ideas, but rising energy prices will not only make the implementation of such facilities unviable, it will make any existing ones unviable as well, or hugely expensive. And I think peak oil will come home to roost in a much shorter timeframe than the next ten years.
Unquote

That was my point, if the windfarms dedicated to desalination were installed in time the only cost would be maintenance, so rising energy prices would not impact on the plant costs.
At times of sufficient water being available then they could sell electricty to the grid.

BTW, a TV item last night, someone has been studying sunspots and believes that we are into the start of a 500 year dry cycle.

Sounds reasonable Bazz. Thanks for the clarification

Cheers

Why did the council allow more building to go on when they knew the town was running out of water? Surely their job was to ensure that housing and activities remained within the water supply.

Mr Clive Berghofer served as an alderman on Toowoomba City Council from 1973 to 1982 and was Mayor from 1982 till he resigned in 1992.
Mr Ross Miller was Mayor from 1993 to 1996.
Mr Tony Bourke was Mayor from 1997 to 2000.
Ms Di Thorley has been Mayor since the year 2000

Toowoomba citizens should set up an enquiry to determine these Mayors' knowledge of the growing crisis of population overdrawing on local catchment.

They should then sue the guilty parties for everything they have got. Surely there is no more heinous crime than overshooting local water supply. What defense do the advocates of recycling and other complex 'solutions' (none of them permanent) supply for their presumptious disservice to their constituents in expecting:

- farmers to pay more for water (so everyone pays more for food)
- locals to pay more for water ...

Qui bono?

For the benefit of whom? Who was going to make money out of this? Who was going to gather power from it? Who was advocating it? What did they stand to gain?

These are the questions to which the citizens of Toowoomba should demand answers. I would like to know the answers as well.
Is there anyone out there who will give us the low-down?

Yes I do see the warning signs GlenWriter.

Some people believe that the idea of recycling sewage for drinking water came from the Toowoomba City Council. Recycled sewage for drinking water has been the imitative of Government, hand in hand with the water recycling industry. Or should I say hand in pocket!

Toowoomba was a test case for the Government and water futures industry.

It doesn't take an Einstein to realise that in a country such as ours there is BIG money to be made with water futures. Follow the dollar trail!

"There is a massive weight of scientific evidence in favour of the recycling, and all there is against it is a scare campaign based around the 'yuck' factor."

TurnRightThenLeft, if you think there is such a massive weight of evidence to support recycled sewage for dinking purposes then I sure would like to see that evidence.

Point me in the direction because I've done a lot of research on this subject and I can't find any evidence anywhere! The only support comes from the water futures industry itself and that's not good enough for me. I want independent long-term health and environmental impact studies before I'm prepared to drink recycled sewage.

I voted "NO" because I did the research not because of any so-called "YUK" factor. That was the very least of my considerations.

Recycled sewage for household use should be the last resort, not the first option and the majority of Toowoomba citizens voted accordingly.

"Those who develop the technologies, who promote them and stand to profit most from them, are not those who suffer their risks. The analysis of technologies is biased toward their use because the technology promoters generally lack the expertise and the incentive to analyze the risks of the technologies for human health and the environment."— H. Patricia Hynes, The Recurring Silent Spring, Pergamon, New York.ISBN: 0080371175

Amber, on 1 August you wrote;

“You might also like to know that if it had not been for the good management and future planning of previous councils…… Toowoomba would have run dry long ago.”

Following responses from myself and Kanga, can you now admit that these councils or at least some them, were highly irresponsible?

You can see the connection between water and money, and the potential for corruption therein. Presumably you can also see the connection between money and real estate or suburban and industrial expansion in general, and the great temptation that many councils have to go all out maximising this sort of development…. without the adequate provision of services.

It appears that this has happened in Toowoomba with the water issue, just as it has in many other towns and cities across the country.

Perhaps Toowoomba should be the test case for taking past councils to task, and thus hopefully improving the accountability of local government and the provision of basic resources with healthy safety margins throughout Australia.

Governments can never make a decision to restrict growth.
Imagine the uproar if a local council or even a state government made a decision that no further development applications would be allowed.

All sorts of groups would be up in arms about restricting their work and business. All the builders for starters would be out of a job.
What would happen to the price of houses ? They would soar in price I imagine. At least the builders houses would be on the market, as well as the local harware and builders suppliers' houses would be on the market. Where would your children live when they married ?

You can see the difficulty from just that small sample. Yet I think everyone on this list can see that there is a limit to the amount of water available. In effect there is need of an economic reconstruction not just a water management program.

Here we go again. The "economic collapse is certain without huge population growth" argument. Go looking for a correlation between population growth and per capita economic prosperity and you will find that there isn't one. But water availibility, traffic congestion and the trade deficit do correlate with population growth. This argument, like many other pro population growth arguments, is regularly presented, debunked, and then recycled, much like the arguments of global warming skeptics. It is little wonder that population growth exponents are so fond of recycling. What would their pro population growth argument be without it?

I have been told, by someone who should know, that there is the opportunity for more water harvesting, [a new dam], up on the downs near Toowoomba.
The water currently makes its way down to the Brisbane dams.
I gather that Toowoomba was given a "flea in the" very qiuckly, when such a suggestion was made.
The water can not be wasted, up there, where it fell.

Bazz

Noosa Council has a population cap in place and it is largely supported by residents.

Of course the workers in the hospitality industries etc. cannot afford to live near their workplaces and property values are inflated. But they do have nice green paint that passes as bike paths and most residents do not have a garbage recycling service, in fact most of the shire is not even sewered.

Bazz

Governments make decisions that restrict growth all the time.

By approving residential developments, industrial sites, individual projects, and by implementing strategic plans, they are regulating growth. In fact, it is one of the main things that local government does.

Yes there are downsides to slowing growth. Builders would be disadvantaged and some would lose their jobs. Businesses that supply materials for new houses would be disadvantaged. Housing prices would in general go up if the demand became significantly greater than supply.

But all of this must be weighed up against the many negative factors of continuous growth. And one of these is the subject at hand – water-provision, with a healthy reserve to tide us through dry times.

We cannot have local government that is beholden to the housing or real estate industry, or the financially well-endowed big end of town. And therein lies one of the fundamental problems – local governments are all too often far too cosy with developers.

Douglas Shire Council (Mossman and Port Douglas) has a development cap, which has been in place for a lot longer that the one in Noosa. The mayor and council there have been re-elected a number of times with that in place, so it is well-supported by the constituency. The Townsville City Council has one for Magnetic Island. And various other places essentially have one, although not stated, by way of their plans as to where development will and will not occur.

But despite these, the concept of limits to growth and development caps is still pretty much brushed off in most places. However, with the water crisis and other resource and service-provision issues, this is bound to change…..soon.

There certainly is “need of an economic reconstruction not just a water management program”.

Hey Fester and Ludwig,
You misread my post, I agree that there is no alternative to a halt in development in some towns/cities in Australia.
I was mearly stating why governments go dumb and make quiet mumbling noises. I think they find themselves between a rock and a hard place and then look how far it is to the next election.

There is no easy answer. The crunch will come and steps taken now will be a lot less painful than steps taken when the dams run down to the scrappings.

Sunday 5th…back to comments on the courier mail of Brisbane Qld publication. At
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/vitalinterest/index.php/couriermail/comments/should_toowomba_be_allowed_to_draw_water_from_the_wivenhoe_dam/#commentsmore

I can give you the gist of the argument here, but I would prefer you take a look yourself,
But it does seem that us outsiders [not residents of the great south-east] would not have our comments printed..
The writer has lived in the great_south_east, as the tourist promoters like to call that area of Queensland. “We suffered our times of drought, and we had our flood times too.” Oh, how easy they forget! It is not until the well runs dry do they question, where has all the water gone? There is hole in the bucket dear Peter, dear Peter_Beattie oh great wise one!

It was great using your power, given you by the voters of Qld, that you could cut the farmer off in irrigating his/her crops. Divert all the water to the power house so farmers who were driven off the land with your “New Improved Dairy Scheme,” following the Southern States Example of buying & marketing milk & milk products. “I recall all the distributed leaflets sent out to the families so they could have ‘counselling,’ in what to do next! Some got a little monetary compensation for time & money lost in failed farm enterprise, but what is that compared to loss of life-style!”

As I mentioned in my comments, yesterday The Energy Providers were coming under scrutiny from the water consumption of the two power houses of Taronga & Swanbank.
So, you will build more and more buildings requiring full air conditioning. If you could open a window, is the air worth breathing, that blows in? What does these Courier Mail Writers think that Steam driven turbines run on? Coal & Water, and lots of both!

It would be interesting to know how many posters are from Toowoomba...

Gecko makes the most valid point...all new houses should have dual water supply pipes for both re-cycled and current municipal supplies...one for drinking and one for flushing and watering.

Treatment plants fail now, who would take responsibility for the sickness and/or deaths that would occur after failure of a treatment plant which was supplying the treated sewerage water for public consumption?

I can't see anyone question the sense in taking recycled water that is currently used by farmers to water vegetables or crops so that townspeople can drink it...what will be used to water the veges that we all need to eat?

How's that for shortsightedness from the leaders in the community?

Use the rainfall more judiciously and channel the massive rainfalls that fall in various parts of this continent so it may be used more effectively and also cause less damage, i.e., to the Great Barrier Reef and our river systems when the northern wet hits.

Governments and councils should offer incentives for safe installation of tank water systems and mulching of home gardens, where appropriate.

While I don't live in Toowoomba, the attitude of some posters who would rather deride those residents or 'Queenslanders' in general, than provide any logical argument...is simply narrow-minded ignorance.

Look at all the facts...

It seems Meg1 doesn't know any Queenslanders.
Now the two pipes in Qld would have to be one for drinking and one to rinse the mouth out when cleaning a Quieenslander's teeth.
Meg, Queensalnders pride themselves in NOT being Australian. They pride themselves in being Queenslanders.

If non-Queenslanders share such nonsensical views as Glenwriter's assumptions and that is the sole basis of their argument...then I guess I can understand why Queenslanders would hold that view.

I know many Queenslanders and they consider themselves very much Australians...except when State of Origin is being played...given the refereeing during the last State of Origin, even the most ardent cockroach supporter would have found contradictory decisions in that one hard to justify...like your generalisations about Queenslanders, Glenwriter.

If you consider that our council and government leaders, or the green movements for that matter, take ALL necessary facts into consideration...then you need to check the facts for yourselves.

The dual pipe system would obviously allow water for cleaning teeth to be delivered from the same pipe that supplies drinking water...common sense surely tells you that much, unless your vision in that regard is as blinkered as your parochialism.

These issues are serious for those affected by them...they deserve a fair appraisal of all the facts, without glib generalisations based on their place of residence.

I guess their argument in reply could be that thousands of 'southerners' can't all be wrong about becoming Queenslanders...it seems that's how many move to Queensland from south of the border every month.

I suggest that you check how many Australian rivers and streams already contain dangerous bacterial or viral contaminants before adding the additional faecal material suggested there. Cholera has been found for starters...it's not one I'd like to see become a threat there or here...guess how it is spread.

Of course those who can afford to buy their water will be ok, it's just those who can't afford to do so who will be the first to suffer any ill effects...and who will have the least to say in the final decision.

Can anyone tell me WHY we are not supplementing our water shortage using the limitless resources from the ocean?.Desalination etc..I mean it is possible to drink seawater and is not used waste.

It probably sounds like a silly question and I acknowledge that , so can anyone enlighten me?It sounds so obvious that I guess I definitely have missed something.

Ozgirl;
There is no problem in using desalinated sea water.
However for Toowoomba it is a big problem. It is a long way from the sea and it is at some altitude.
Water being heavy is very very expensive to pump. So even if you can afford the pipeline and pumping stations you probably cannot afford to run the pumps.
There are lots of pipelines running around Australia, but they are gas lines and would not be anywhere near as strong as needed for water.

The suggestion of an additional set of pipes for grey water has been done in part of Sydney,
but only in a new subdivision.
It would be extrordinarly expensive to do it everywhere.
The streets would be being torn up for the next 50 years.

The main argument being given for the opposing vote is the so-called “YUK” factor.

As a NO voter, I can assure you that the major contributing factors were:

1. The lack of better management and adequate investment in water infrastructure
2. The lack of community consultation
3. A view that Council was either not capable or not willing to examine practical alternatives
4. No long-term studies on safety to health and the environment

All of which caused the community to lose faith in its Council.

At all times, we should take the position of using the best source of water possible for potable use. Our first option should be recycling sewage to free up drinking water in preference to directly replenishing supplies. Reasons for this approach include the unknown long-term outcomes from ingesting recycled wastewater and the expense involved in programs that monitor the quality of treatment to avoid the possibility of adverse effects.

The story of recycling sewage for indirect potable reuse is not finished. It is up to you whether this has a place in the future of Australia or not. Cast your vote well!

Ozgirl;
I just remembered there is a long water pipeline in Western Australia from Perth to Kalgoolie. I suspect, without really knowing, that gold mines is what made it economic.
So Toowoombans, get out your panning dishes and go prospecting.
Seriously, maybe it is not so economically impossible.
Remembering you would not need to produce 100% of your water Toowoomba could install its own desalination plant and its own pipeline and a large windfarm to drive it all.
As it would be an intermittant operation, depending on the wind it would need to be larger than otherwise.
The windfarm could be anywhere in the Eastern power grid from Queensland to Tasmania.

It would be horribly expensive, but might be cheaper than moving Toowomba.

Yes Bazz and Ozgirl – duplication of the ‘reticulation’ system is certainly not the answer. Neither is desalination, which is very energy intensive, in a time when the cost of liquid fossil fuel energy is rapidly increasing and alternative sources are nowhere near ready to replace it.

The capture of stormwater off rooves and into tanks and off roads and into small dams is part of the answer. The prevention of further increase in the number of consumers of water (limits to population growth) is part of the answer. Increased efficiency in water usage along with restrictions is part of the answer. The implementation of recycled water could be part of the answer.

And the realisation that the safe supply rate compared to demand had been grossly infringed by poor planning under previous Toowoomba City Councils, and that they should be brought to task over it, so that council accountability improves, so that nothing of the sort ever happens again….. is a part of the answer!

I wouldn't criticise the people of toowoomba for erring on the side of caution .
The first thought in my mind upon hearing the discussion about recycling sewerage water for human consumption was not that the process may not work well as i'm sure it can .
It's the danger of contamination of supply lines or the main supply resevour should something go wrong from human error or equipment failure .
To deny the possibility exists for such dangers is foolish indeed .
Let's face it a contamination event only has to happen once & it's too late . What happens then ?

Jamo has hit-the-nail-on-the-head...as I said, those who can afford bottled water will be ok...those who can't afford it will suffer the effects of any system failure. Nothing's changed. Human-error-or-system-failure-will-certainly-occur...with consequences for those unfortunate enough to fall victim.

Ludwig suggests that little dams, tanks and damning any more babies may be the answer...perhaps the residents of that Sunshine State should barricade their borders instead. After all they've plenty of water in the Far North for themselves, why should they worry about anyone south of the 'Brisbane line' - they can send all that Northern water on down in a pipe alongside the gas pipeline from PNG...

Desalination is currently used overseas, very successfully...close to the sea...not kilometres inland. Sewerage will use energy to treat and purify too, Ludwig...just as expensively.

Recycled water has a place...it is currently being used in Toowoomba to grow fresh vegetables and/or to pasture cattle...we all like to eat, how do the powers that be suggest the farmers water their crops and stock? More bureaucratic short-sightedness? Maybe they can use tap water...freed up once the sewerage is used for drinking water.

Incentives can be provided to instal rainwater tanks in almost every home...safely-and-effectively.

Incentives can be provided to instal bio-cycle systems using treated sewerage and grey water to water gardens and lawns...currently used in many outlying areas/suburbs where town services are not provided. Dual-pipe-systems could currently use this treated water to flush your toilet NOW...no digging up footpaths for 50 years, just cut and join a few fittings...

The Snowey was an impossible dream to all but the persistent ONE who refused to give up...so too is the opportunity to effectively use wasted water that pours onto the GBR for much of the year in FNQ. The GBR will thank you for a few thousand less megalitres of water stirring things up along the reef every time it rains along the coast.

Think-outside-the-square...life is more than living like corporate lackeys and only drinking and eating what comes out of a can or bottle...or take away food chain...anything with a profit margin to exploit.

Meg, I am suprised that you are against water recycling, given that
your theology promotes ever increasing numbers of people on the
planet.

You are going to have to face it! As population increases, natural
ecosystems will become more and more stressed. Recycling of water
will become part of all that, its already happening in many places.

So you need to sort out your dilema. If you want ever increasing
amounts of humans on this planet, reusing your own waste water
is part of that, you can't have it both ways.

While you have a problem with accepting there are more ways of using recycled water than just drinking it Yabby...others may be more attuned to where our vegetables and other foods come from...if the farmers at Toowoomba are presently using the waste water to water crops, etc...stop being so short-sighted...how will they produce the food without the water.

There is water in this country...just not enough vision to use it successfully and effectively enough...and narrow-mindedness won't solve the problems, nor will ignoring the obvious obstacles.

Stand for council in outback WA, Yabby and try to implement the same use of water so you can drink it there...nice and dry...see how you go there. For that matter use the bio-cycle loos and reuse your waste water now...try to clean that up for drinking...Good Luck! Just don't suggest that those who may or may not be affected should not be entitled to have a say...rather than just those like you who haven't much to do other than condemn without cause...at the very least give a reasoned argument for agreeing or disagreeing with the object of the discussion.

Stand for council on Norfolk Island or one of several other islands or in councils that administer islands Meg1 and see how far you get with a policy of open-ended population growth. Similarly with Douglas shire, Noosa shire and a few others.

Even the hardest of hard-nosed politicians and economists can see that a limit to the number of consumers is necessary on small islands. More and more people are seeing the necessity of extending this very basic concept to places on the mainland.

And especially this year, the number of people that are realising that limits to growth are of paramount importance in our cities and whole regions such as SEQ has rapidly grown, as a direct result of the resource crisis presented by water shortages.

“Ludwig suggests that little dams, tanks and damning any more babies may be the answer...”

Meg please, damning babies – that’s a bit rough!

“…perhaps the residents of that Sunshine State should barricade their borders instead.”

Gee, you really haven’t given this aspect of the water issue any thought at all have you!

Firstly, it is eminently sensible NOT to continue increasing the demand on a stressed resource, especially one as vital as water… and eminently stupid to just go on accepting rapid growth when things become as grim as they now are in SEQ.

Secondly, it is not a matter of erecting a fence at the border. It is a matter of implementing disincentives for people to move into resource-stressed areas, and of councils rejecting new development proposals in such areas. It is not difficult and not in any way draconian.

‘The prevention of further increase in the number of consumers of water (limits to population growth) is part of the answer.’ Ludwig, that sounds like I got your intention just right!

…barricading the borders was meant to be tongue in cheek…sorry if you missed that. There was so much Queenslander-sledging that it seemed like we needed to be reminded the issue wasn’t State-of-Origin, where we can win no matter how the other side plays-most-of-the-time…we just convince ourselves the others can play by a separate set of rules to us Cockies…south of that “Brisbane line”.

So too, my suggestion that Yabby should stand for anything…wasn’t an endorsement…he usually falls for pretty well anything, so the suggestion’s unlikely at best.

Where do you live, Ludwig? Mars? Australia’s a rather large island by Norfolk’s standards…how do you propose that we offer disincentives to the people hoping to move to Qld…tell them the ‘southern’ gentry will be unimpressed? Lol

China ‘offers’ disincentives to population growth too…should we follow? …or can we do better?

I am aware of council policies in high-growth-areas and of necessities to plan-and-limit housing-developments, especially high-density developments in particular areas…you-don’t-want-to-believe-everything-Yabby-sprouts…he-didn’t-write-the-Gospels.

‘…eminently sensible NOT to continue increasing the demand on a stressed resource’

…which is exactly what drinking recycled waste water is doing…instead of allowing the water to remain for use on crops, therefore naturally filtered through the soil, in the sunlight.

If you’d like to drink your own waste…go ahead, in your own area…why force it on Toowoomba residents? I KNOW there are other alternatives…just-no-vision-to-implement-them.

You argue that limits to population growth are necessary ‘as a direct result of the resource crisis presented by water shortages’…and that I haven’t given much thought to the water issue…on the contrary, I am aware that there are archived plans to utilize available water from Queensland that can provide significant relief both to the general population and the environment…including the Murray. This amongst other plans…all that is lacking is vision and commitment from those whose capacity can’t see past offering disincentives for any more babies…

It’s-interesting-that two-out-of-the-four-dams-supplying-SEQ-are-currently-extremely-LOW-while-two-are-almost-FULL…demonstrating-that-it’s-human-error-that-usually-creates-the-problem-with-lack-of-resources…the-damn-dams-were-put-in-the-wrong-place-to-catch-the-available-excess-water…i.e.,inappropriate-catchment-areas.

Before-speaking-about-councils-and-water-demands…in-SEQ-or-FNQ,check-your-facts…some-councils-in-coastal-SEQ-are-doing-very-well-water-wise,despite-populations-being-amongst-the-highest-per-sq.m.-in-SEQ. Great-water-planning-or-well-placed-dams? Certainly-no-baby-bans-or-disincentives-to-southerners…Joh B-P got that right...

Alternately-Douglas-Shire,FNQ-no-shortage-of-water-just-bad-planning-and-no-government-funding-for-adequate,well-placed-water-storage-and-infrastructure...Fact!

Wow Meg, that’s some response.

“ ‘The prevention of further increase in the number of consumers of water (limits to population growth) is part of the answer.’ Ludwig, that sounds like I got your intention just right!”

So let me just get this crystal clear – you don’t think that stabilising overall demand is a necessary part of the answer? You do think that we can and should just allow population growth in SEQ or Sydney or Perth or wherever… until the quality of life is degraded to the extent that no one else wants to move there?

“I am aware of council policies in high-growth-areas and of necessities to plan-and-limit housing-developments, especially high-density developments in particular areas…”

Excellent. I don’t think our views are that far apart afterall. So what “necessities” do you perceive are valid for limiting housing developments? Don’t you think chronic water shortages would be one of those necessities?

“…how do you propose that we offer disincentives to the people hoping to move to Qld…tell them the ‘southern’ gentry will be unimpressed? Lol

Perhaps you need to consider some of the possibilities before you laugh the issue off. One simple disincentive might be to place a considerable excise or tariff or one-off payment on people moving into resource-stressed areas, whether they be from interstate or not. Or we could add a, say, 25% surcharge to their rates or rents. There are numerous disincentives of this sort, which would be just as valid as current financial incentives to buy a rainwater tank or install a gas tank in your car or have more babies. The size of the financial disincentive could easily be adjusted until it does what it is supposed to do – slow or stop new residents moving into areas in which they would add to existing problems. Meg, three posts back you advocated incentives. So are disincentives that much different?

“China ‘offers’ disincentives to population growth too…should we follow? …or can we do better?” Please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4764#51257
and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4685#48097

August 16, 2006, 3:20 AM
Our council tells us via the 'local rag,' Bedford weir has 92% as on Monday, August 14th, Sun Water records. Don't rush to live here as accommodation is scant, unless you buy, then you will need a spare 250,000 thousand dollars at least, or ability to procure housing loan, plus the well paid job to go with it. Item beside it says Government visit postponed, meaning the Director General Dept. to look at the 'downside' of the coal boom. A litte over 3 years back they were shifting houses out of the area. Now they are trucking them in, those who can afford to.

The other minus is the water treatment facility has a mechanical fault that they know not when it can be fixed! Why did I get rid of my water tank? We are still allowed to use hand-held-hose sparingly.
All the water employees are ‘trainees,’ as the guys have left to earn the big dollar, and as you may guess
Council pay would hardly cover the rents charged in the district. So you see, lack of water is not the problem. You may find some reference to this news at http://www.cqnews.com.au/index.cfm later today, as the main Emerald paper has the web site.

I read that a certain number of Toowoomba district farmers were using the treated water to grow crops, and were against the treated water being recycled for domestic use. What happens when the well really runs dry, they will be no water for the city & none for them either.

My comments were actually meant in a bigger picture sense, then
your little patch of Queensland, Meg. Its really a global
issue as much as anything, we are just more fortunate then
much of the rest of the world.

Go to Hong Kong, Shanghai, Mumbai or a number of other Indian
or even European cities and the main problem is simply too
many people. They have little choice but to recycle waste
water.

Even Perth will have to look at recycling waste water. More
and more people, less rainfall, less runoff, using fossil
fuel to convert sea water is not sustainable either. If
somebody objects, I guess they are free to install their
own rainwater tank.

I fully agree that some shires should limit their populations
Ludwig, as you mentioned, some are doing so

I would like the government to undertake a study to see what the cost of water would be for two proposals;
1. A desalination plant driven indirectly by windfarms including the
cost of getting the water into the reticulation system. It would only need to feed into the nearest points until
those points used all the available output.

2. A recycling system incluing all the extra mains piping needed to feed it into the whole system.
You could not get people to accept that they would have recycled
when others had "new" water or desalinated water.

Unless we have a figure for schemes like this all discussion pointless.

Meg

I should have written; “Wow Meg, that’s some response. Thankyou”

I appreciate people who go to the trouble to fully consider one’s comments and give detailed responses.

Yabby

Congrats on 500 posts on OLO

Actually Yabby…it’s not “my” little patch of Queensland…and I consider the global picture is THE picture. If your little patch in WA is spoiled, it affects the bigger picture sooner-or-later unless addressed. Unlike you, I prefer to do more than just offer glib put-downs…I don’t have to live there in order to see their viewpoint.

RE: HK, etc…the real problem is the rich buy water and the poor go to communal areas to get reticulated water that is unsafe…recycled-and-labelled UNSAFE for drinking…that’s what you’re suggesting for Toowoomba?

Which brings us to the real issue for Toowoomba, whether the Corporates like Coca Cola Amatil will have another market for their bottled water…or not.

Like everything else from either government in this country…it all comes back to the policies to give big bucks to the Corporates and then the reflex action of big bucks from the big boys for the ALP, LIBS and NPA election funds…check out the policies in relation to the donations lists in ANY state or the Federal sphere and tell me there’s no co-relationship…

Ludwig you seem to have confused Toowoomba with Rio De Janeiro or Beijing – let’s get this in perspective.

Other forms of accessing water are possible for Toowoomba - the powers that be are simply hell-bent on using the population there as a scape-goat trial for re-cycled waste water. Let’s examine ALL options and do not discount the effect that the proposed decision will have on the production of local crops which will be without THEIR water source.

Still haven’t decided an alternative food-source? Chinese food-safety standards would make you blanch, let alone the levels of toxins, etc. that are ‘acceptable’ in foodstuffs…not accepted from our own farmers, but they’re here as IMPORTS on our supermarket shelves.

Limiting development (whether-by-building-height,maximum-dwelling-limit/sq-ha,maximum-of-one-duplex/triplex,etc.-per-ten-single-residential-dwellings) does not necessarily limit population. If people have to live there to work, they’ll be forced to live crammed-in-with-relatives,-friends-or-in-accommodation-too-small-for-their-needs–like-many-are-already-doing-in-coastal-communities-along-the-east-coast-and-paying-outrageous-rental-charges-to-live-in-poorly-maintained-dwellings. (Check-with-local-'affordable-housing'-groups...)

This simply forces the housing prices up past the grasp of low-to-middle-income-Australian-families and puts them at the mercy of the ‘financially well-endowed big end of town’ – somewhat-like-providing-recycled-sewerage-as-drinking-water,may-inconvenience-or-harm-average-families-but-the-‘financially well-endowed big end of town’-will-simply-buy-bottled-water.

tbc...

[Deleted for using hyphens to exceed real word count.]

I think you might be jumping to conspiracy theories about
corporations yet once again, Meg. Most give something to
both parties, to make sure that whoever wins, they are not
discriminated against for giving nothing or backing the
other side. If they gave large amounts, shareholders would
squeal like hell. They are accountable after all. Rich
individuals are another story, but most big bizz is actually
owned by shareholders, above all super funds, which you and
everyone else own. So forget the bottled water for bribery
theory :)

What it comes down to is cost. In WA there is heaps of water,
but its in the North. To pipe it South would cost 4 times more
then desalination. Similarly they would have crunched the numbers
in Queensland. Consumers want water for a song. The numbers
don't stack up. So the question is, how much will consumers pay
for water that is not recycled?

Few people need to buy bottled water in Australia, when they
have roofs where a small tank can be installed. We at least
still have options in Australia, unlike many parts of the
world, where due to too many people, recycled water is
compulsory.

Meg, you wrote:

“Ludwig you seem to have confused Toowoomba with Rio De Janeiro or Beijing – let’s get this in perspective.”

Obviously Meg, my perspective is national.

“… ‘disincentives’ have the same effect.”

Financial disincentives should be means tested, as per that horrible baby bonus, rather than one-price-fits-all as with water tanks and car gas conversions. There is an issue with financial disincentives disadvantaging the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, but we cannot let this be an excuse for open-ended growth in stressed cities or regions. Anyway, quite apart from the merits of disincentives to move into crowded areas or incentives to move into non-stressed towns, I think you have at least indicated that the concept of management of growth is fair and reasonable. That’s the main thing.

“You might like to review your stagnant population theory too…”

I presume you mean ‘population stabilisation ethos’. With respect, you might like to think about where we will be a few years down the track if we don’t head for limits to population growth. Water will be just one in a rolling series of resource crises. There is nothing stagnant about a stable population.

“Ludwig, 1.8 children isn’t replacement population – hardly rapid population growth…not even break-even…”

Sorry Meg but you are wrong. With our current fertility rate of about 1.8, and net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for about another 40 years. This is because the number of people in their reproductive years is very high with respect to the total population age structure. So, the personal fertility rate is below replacement, but the total fertility rate is quite significantly above 2.1.

Heading for a stable population does not mean that “in a few years time... there [will be] no young’uns to work the land…”. And the aging of our population is nowhere near as a big an issue as it is made out to be by some vested-interest pro-growthers.

Incidentally, the Burdekin Dam is pretty well south of the lower Burdekin agricultural area, and west of Mackay and Proserpine.

Ludwig has confused population growth with the age distribution.
A balanced population is needed for the population as a whole to be succesful in providing all the social
services needed as well as the resources for public works of all types.
This is where it affects subjects such as water services.
There simply has to be a significant proportion of the population
as taxpayers.
An unbalanced population cannot do it.

The birth rate is directly the result of government pandying to the equal rights movement by
forcing lending institutions to lend on two incomes. It will be virtually impossible to get the birth rate
to a self sustaining level until that dopey decision is reversed.
It forced up the price of houses and the women then realised they had no choice but to work.
Simple priciples;
If you borrow on two incomes, you need two incomes to repay.
The price of houses is directly related to the amount of money in the market.

With an election on September 9, all Queenslanders now have the opportunity to vote whether they want recycled sewage water in their drinking water or not.

If you want recycled sewage water in your drinking water - Vote for Labor.

If you want fresh water in your drinking water - Vote for the Coalition

amber4350,
Just how are the Qld coalition going to deliver fresh water.
Neither Labor nor the Liberal/National coalition can deliver fresh water.
Both can deliver hot air.
Both will piss in your pocket.
Both will promise fresh water.
If anyone can deliver fresh water they will also deliver cheap petrol and cheap house loans.
John Howard can't deliver cheap petrol or cheap hoes loans and God is on his side.
God is on the Qld Lib/Nat coalition side and they won't be able to devliver fresh water.
Now as for promises.
Yes they can deliver them we are in the promised land . . . of promises.
You know what you get when you are on a "promise"
Nothing but lies.

Proof that The National Party was behind the NO vote in Toowoomba.

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile will officially launch Lyle Shelton’s campaign for the seat of Toowoomba North in the September 9 State election.

More than 200 business and community leaders have booked in for a gala campaign dinner at the Cathedral Centre tomorrow night to mark the launch.

Mr Shelton said it was a privilege to have such strong support from the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Federal National Party.

I think I smell a conspiracy ;)

As a member of the NO campaign in Toowoomba, I can vouch for the fact that the National Party was NOT and NEVER was behind the NO vote in Toowoomba.

Lyle Shelton was a member of the NO campaign as a sitting councillor and a citizen of Toowoomba. State politics had nothing to do with it.

Bazz, a balanced population does indeed need a high portion of working and tax-paying people. But if the way of attempting to balance the age distribution is to beef up the birthrate or immigration of young people, to the extent that our population keeps on growing indefinitely, or even to the extent that it becomes significantly larger before stabilising, then we really are on a losing track.

So, while it is important to consider a balanced population age structure, it is considerably more important to consider the total population size and its effect on our resource base.

It is completely nonsensical to think about a balanced population in terms of age structure without thinking very carefully about a balanced population in terms of our supply / demand resource regime, ie – a population that is in balance with its life-support systems.

Ludwig,
If Peter's three children proposal was taken up immeadiatly
by the time those children reached employment a very large number
of the older population will have died.
It cannot happen very quickly as the women have not learnt the lesson yet. My own daughter-in-law is an example of that.
My neice however has decided to have her children as soon as possible, her first is due next month and she was only married a year ago.
She is 30. She said her reason was the problems some friends had and the problems my daughter-in-law had.
They have a small unit at present and are trying to organise a job in a country town where they can get a cheaper house on one income.
So there is some hope but it will take time. The time taken will probably mean that the indigenous population will remain constant
so we can cut back on immigration.
Most of these infrastructure problems would be solved if we can get
a more demographically balanced society.

I saw a figure recently that in 50 years time there will be no more Italians. A BBC TV documentary showed an Italian village and there were
no children in the streets, whereas in previous times the streets would have been filled with children playing.

A demographer they interviewed stated that the Italian birthrate had fallen to an unrecoverable rate.
What he meant by that was that it was not possible even with an
endangered species program they could not recover.

I did not realise Italians were a separate species, I thought they lived in the boot shaped bit of rock.

Thanks for the info, I'll buy my next pizza from Luigi's. Can't loose pizza and grappa.

Good grief!

Yabby, corporations give money to BOTH sides (often equally) the government obliges and opposition’s silenced…it works, doesn’t it? – major parties ALL support National Competition Policy creator of Corporate monopolies’n’duopolies – supermarkets,fuel suppliers,etc.

‘If they gave large amounts, shareholders would squeal like hell.’

Yabby, even you can google the Australian Electoral Donations List…under your favourite Corporations…check BIG donations across major parties…scary stuff when you match the dots with the policies that BOTH sides support and see who benefits…significant government grants mainly follow the same pattern.

…and the shareholders aren’t even aware…nor are they aware of a great many corporate sqauanderings…you’ve just proved that…You didn’t know? No conspiracy…no theories, Yabby…join the dots…ALL FACTS!

RE: ‘piping’ water south…If you were smarter, Yabby, you wouldn’t exclude existing God-made river systems to send the water south, where possible…smarter people than you or I have had suitable plans years ago…they wouldn’t just solve Queensland’s problems, they’d go a long way to helping other southern states also…and drought-proofing much of the inland in the east-coastal states…but the trick is, the Corporates have to get their cut before government will entertain the idea.

You continually assume there is no cost to ‘recycled’ water…nothing could be further from the truth…especially where it would be recycled to bring it to a standard for human consumption.

A ‘small tank’ won’t supply enough water for household consumption in most areas, unless you live in one of the wettest towns in Australia…you’ll need a very BIG tank otherwise.

tbc...

Cont...

No Ludwig…you’re wrong, on two counts…re: population and the position of the Burdekin Dam.

The Burdekin Dam supplies ‘channel water’ to farmers in the Burdekin River Irrigation Area (north and south of the Haughton River) and water to both the Haughton and Burdekin Rivers (which are north and south of Ayr respectively) – it you’d like to visit the dam wall, you should travel through Clare…westward. The dam is NOT ‘south of the lower Burdekin agricultural area, and west of Mackay and Proserpine.’ Those living in the Gumlu (vegetable producers and cattlemen) or Bowen, Proserpine and Mackay (quite a distance south of Home Hill), would love to have access to Burdekin Dam water. In fact, Bowen (south) – is presently supporting the piping of water from that dam to their VERY dry township…Townsville in the north also has their supply supplemented from the dam when necessary. : )

The population argument has been addressed admirably in response already…

‘my perspective is national’

Then you will appreciate that there are few areas in Queensland that will hold a candle to the problems of Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan areas…and Toowoomba isn’t in the race to be one of them.

There’s some national perspective…

Glenwriter made valid points and Bazz’s right…Toowoomba and Australia aren’t teetering on the environmental edge…population balance is crucial to economic-survival and maintenance of essential-services.

…you’re full of information, Bazz…you’ll find that the same population info…re: Italy...if applied across most of the EU…would show much the same result…it’s been coming for years. Travel through Germany, Sweden, France and a number of other EU countries…children are few and far between.

Meg, some people connect the dots and come up with conspiracy theories :) What do you call a "big" donation? Big enough so that
every member of both parties conspires to defraud the public about
the truth, with no whistleblowers etc. I think thats a fantasy.

Competition policy is good for consumers, makes economic sense,
so its supported. People make the end decisions by voting with their
wallets. Nobody forces people to go to large supermarkets, they could go to the corner store and pay more. They don't.

Many people draw up large infrastructure plans, the question is always who pays for them, how much do they cost, will they gain
any votes. Voters don't seem to accept large Govt deficits anymore, so realpolitik applies. In WA, because the country always votes
conservative, when labor is in power, spending in the country is
largely cut back, in favour of where more seats could be won at the
next election. Perhaps the same realpolitik applies in Queensland.

How much water do you drink a day Meg? 2L perhaps? Most water that
you use, is in fact for your toilet, your shower, your lawn, washing
floors, dishes, cars, etc. etc. A family of four would thus only
need about 8-10 litres of actual drinking water, which can be
provided through a small tank and a separate tap. Lots of people
already install them, so that they don't have to drink the chlorinated stuff, it tastes a whole lot better and no need to
buy it in bottles.

Less population in Europe would probably be a good thing. They could
perhaps live more sustainably then they are now, not crowded into
those little flats. Owning a house in Europe is in many parts only
for the rich.

What will most likely happen however and already is, that the masses
will move from overcrowded Africa and the Middle East, Asia etc,
so the future European population will just be light brown rather
then white. No big deal really.

“The dam is NOT ‘south of the lower Burdekin agricultural area, and west of Mackay and Proserpine.”

Meg, it is extraordinary that you call me wrong on this matter when it can so easily be confirmed by anyone by simply looking at a map of Qld. You haven’t looked at your atlas!

This tells me a lot – that you get a vision in your head and that’s the end of it. You allow no room for it to be wrong. It wasn’t even worth checking, because you just innately knew you were right….even though you are wrong!!

“….the Haughton and Burdekin Rivers (which are north and south of Ayr respectively)”

YES, the Burdekin River is SOUTH of Ayr! But the Haughton River well and truly WEST of Ayr!

It seems that the same problem applies with the population issue, which you are also profoundly wrong about.

You have had nothing to say about my response to your comments on fertility rate. I presume you concede that you were totally wrong on that matter too.

In fact, you haven’t furthered debate on the population factor at all. It seems that you really are totally disinterested in this huge aspect of the water issue. This is most unfortunate. It really does make for a very unbalanced view on the whole business

Yabby;
It is more than the water you drink.
You clean your teeth.
You wash the dishes.
You use water for cooking at various times during the process.
There are innumeral times when you have the chance of ingesting some water.
I am not sure about clothes washing, I guess it would matter just what microbes were around.
NSW regulation require a maximium temperature of 50 degrees for hot water systems.
I suspect that is not high enough to kill bacteria.
I had a new hot water system fitted and 50 deg is not very hot.
I can put my hand in it with only minor discomfort.
I managed to crank it up to 55 deg.

I hot water system temperature is not one of things that was discussed when people were talking about recycling.

Bazz, how many litres of water do you use to clean your teeth ? :)

If you wash dishes, do you use dishwashing liquid?

If you cook, more often then not, you boil the water. Now
if you don't, like to rinse the veggies, so use the rainwater tap!
How many litres a day is that?

The thing is, Queensland is growing, with so many people moving
there, its raining less and people want water for a song.
People are also creatures of habit, who fear the unknown.
Me thinks that this is playing a role in this debate, us oldish
farts don't like change :)

So are you prepared to pay alot more for water? Is everyone?
The figures need to add up in the end.

Meantime around the world water recycling is pretty common
and cost effective. Meg is happy to let nature recycle it for
her, she just doesent trust technology. (hey... so put in a
drinking water tank)

I'll let you in on a little secret. I live in the outback
and have my own water supply here, alot of it from the roofs
off the buildings. Very occasionally I've cleaned out the bottom
of one or other of the tanks and whewww, you would be amazed what
is in there :) All those birds pooping on my roof, which also
washes into the tanks, hasn't killed me yet either

Yabby,
Maybe so, but in major towns and cities there can be a lot of junk from exhaust pollution on the roofs. They fit a device that passes the water from the roof into the drain for a period and then tips after the roof has had a wash and sends the rest into the tank.

Baz

Yabby, how’s a-cool-million-in-one-hit to ALP from Westpac…

Perhaps $100/200,000, across major-parties from numerous corporates…check before you comment’n’google-to-your-hearts-content…be sure to follow ALL links to see the real extent of your corporate mates’ squanderings.

Added to all those free-dinners and invites to the corporate-sporting-boxes for compliant pollies and industry representatives…it’s amazing how 'resilient' some have become…truth is stranger than fiction…

Then there’s taxpayer-funded-grants to distract shareholders…usually covering/disguising any donations…coincidence?

Well said Bazz!…tank-size depends on average-yearly-rainfall AND essential-potable-usage...I too use tank-water,Yabby (bore-water)

Ludwig, YOU'RE WRONG again…the Haughton AND Burdekin Rivers BOTH run from west of AYR, at some stage…but both run to the sea…NORTH and SOUTH of AYR respectively…check your common sense AND your atlas. See: http://www.burdekin.qld.gov.au/visitorinfo/livingintheburdekin.html#BURDEKINDAM

Confused with Burdekin River basin’s 130,000 square-kilometre catchment-area?

Then take a drive, directions included on weblink, take a turn LEFT on the Bruce Highway north of Ayr-after crossing the Haughton River - travel WESTWARDS to dam wall. The Burdekin Dam was so named because it supplies the Burdekin district with water for irrigation…NOT Mackay,Proserpine or Bowen (1hr south)…the Dam isn’t remotely near Cairns either, as has also been suggested.

I know the Queensland coastline and many inland areas very well, from a lifetime of travelling through them.

Mackay wishes the Dam wall had moved closer…they’d receive all allocated water they’re currently paying through the teeth to retain. Why do I give a damn (excuse-the-pun)? Because Ludwig, I don’t have to live through a drought/depression/war-or-other calamity, to care about the people who are caught up in them, through-no-fault-of-their-own. I don’t want to be like those who hung their heads after the holocaust and asked themselves why they refused to see what Hitler was doing to the Jews, the disabled, twins-for-research, etc.

If I empathise with people’s situations…I have a responsibility-to-act-and-articulate-those-facts…not reach the end of my life and say on my retirement, “My only regret is that I did not speak out once for justice and against corruption.” …as a retiring senior public servant did recently…

Likewise…population‘control’ – Ludwig…should we adopt the Chinese-mantra…killing off all babies over the one-child-policy…my comments earlier give my feelings precisely…careful-what-you-wish-for,Ludwig…

Ludwig,
Meg1 writes in her last line:
"my comments earlier give my feelings precisely…careful-what-you-wish-for, Ludwig…'
And dear Meg is up at 3.33am in the dark writing on the internet.
Meanwhile, I just got up at 6am to give the people of Toowoomba some filtered water.

If Peter Beattie is returned to office he will CLAIM A MANDATE TO PUT SEWAGE WATER into SEQ water supplies.

There is no scientific evidence to support the safe use of recycled sewage water for drinking purposes. Scientists agree that tests are inadequate for tracing emerging pharmaceuticals and synthetic chemicals in minute quantities and are unsure how these chemicals may interact in sewage water.

More research is required on long-term health effects and the impact on the environment before this should ever be considered.

Our first option should be recycling sewage to free up drinking water in preference to directly replenishing current supplies. Good reasons for this approach include the unknown long-term outcomes from ingesting recycled sewage water, which will have a residue of unknown synthetic chemicals after treatment, and the expense involved in programs that monitor the quality of treatment to avoid the possibility of adverse effects including machinery malfunctions, accidents and terrorist acts.

The water from recycled sewage is most commonly used for non-drinking purposes, such as agriculture, landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation. Other applications include cooling water for power plants and oil refineries, industrial process water for such facilities as paper mills and carpet dyers, toilet flushing, dust control, construction activities, concrete mixing, and artificial lakes.

Amber,
In making re-cycled water the sewage is filtered but there are stil microbes in the water so it then is subjected ti radiation to kill those microbes.
Therefore dead microbes are in the water when we drink it. They are too small to be filtered out.
Now those microbes, do they collect traces of radiation when they are killed.
No one has brought this point up that when tthe sewage undergoes radiation is the radiation safe.
Yes, must be the answer but radiation is collective and adds to the original dose.
Now health authorities recommend that we drink a litre of water a day.
So in 10 years each person will consume 3650 litres of water.
Will in 10 years time will there be an outbreak of stomach cancers because of the collective affect of the micobes that have undergone radiation to kill them?

GlenWriter, you may have a point there and thank you for bringing it to our attention.

With regards to radiation and stomach cancers, you might also like to think about the irradiated food, which is gradually making its way into our food chain. In Australia the following foods have been approved for irradiation. Herbs, spices, herbal infusions (teas) and nine tropical fruits, (mangoes, paw paws, lychees, longans, mangosteens, rambutana, carambolas, breadfruit and custard apples).

It won't be long and many other foods will be irradiated with Cobalt 60, which is produced in nuclear reactors, sometimes as a by-product of power generation.

But back to the subject of water:

GlenWriter, as far as I'm concerned drinking recycled sewage water is not safe whatever multi-barrier filtration method is used.

O dear Meg. You are still insisting that the Haughton River is north of Ayr. There are no rivers north of Ayr, only a bit of sugarcane and a whole lot of mangroves.

Getting your directions mixed up in the first place is a simple and understandable mistake. Lots of people in north and central Qld seem to do it, apparently largely because the coast between about Bundaberg and Townsville runs NNW to NW, ie a long way off north, which seems to throw some peoples’ bearings right out.

But insisting that you are right when you aren't is something else altogether! You obviously still haven’t simply looked at a map. But you suggest that it is I who should look at the map!! This is really strange stuff!! I’ll leave it to whoever wishes to actually look at a map to decide who is right.

Your complete refusal to just simply admit that you’ve got your directions haywire is too much for me.

And all you can off in relation to the essential issue of the stabilisation vs continuous growth in demand is “….killing off all babies over the one-child-policy….”. Wow! What a well though-out effort.

You have shown yourself to be fairly and squarely in the ‘too loopy’ category.

Amber, I appreciate your views on the safety of recycled water.

So if you think recycled water is so dodgy, what do you think of tank water?

It seems to me that there are potentially a lot of concerns with the quality of tank water, regarding pollution from dirty rooves, not least disease from bird and bat droppings. Could it be that we cannot have trees overhanging our rooves, or even anywhere near them? How good are the filters? Just how good is tank water?

Can you also give me your comparison between recycled water and treated dam water.

In a nutshell, what do you think is the best option, or combination, for Toowoomba and for all of SEQ?

Thanks

Meg, given that Westpac earnt about 2000 million, plus paid another
appr. 600 million in tax, why should 1 million be a problem?
If anyone thinks its a problem, they are free to raise it at the
Westpac AGM.

In general company donations are not that large:
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/02/03-0003.html

What Bazz showed is that apart from brushing his teeth and the bit
of water he drinks, most water in the house could in fact be recycled
water, without any large problems. A small rainwater tank would
solve it for most, for the bit used for drinking.

Lets face it, around the world, many cities draw their water from
rivers, yet upstream from those cities, other cities use the same rivers to dump their treated sewage water.

Glenwriter, I thought UV was used to kill microbes in water.

Meg, the China story shows what can happen if we don't address the
population issue early enough. China had to take drastic action
and now has 300 million people less, then would have otherwise been the
case. That means a much better chance of feeding and clothing 1.3 billion already there. Poverty and hunger have dropped dramatically
in China. Take the other extreme, the Horn of Africa. They have
some of the world's highest birthrates, the least use of contraception and family planning. They also have huge overpopulation, hunger and mass starvation on a regular basis.

Ludwig, that’s a big ask for a little old lady at her computer, but I shall do my best.

Let’s take tank water first: I have no concerns about using tank water at all. I was raised in western Queensland and the only water we had was tank water. Water conservation and recycling was part of our daily routine. Many people still use only tank water. Tanks from 2.5 to 5 kilolitres should be ideal to maximise use by including laundry, toilet and garden use.

There are many ways to improve the quality of the tank water collected from the house roof, from first flush systems, to filtration and settlement tanks. If in doubt my suggestion would be to filter it and boil it before drinking.

In Toowoomba we have had water restrictions of one kind or another for almost 19 years and if water tanks had been made mandatory in new buildings 20 years ago throughout the nation, we would not have a drinking water shortage anywhere today.

To install a new tank now means some will have them and some will not because not everyone can afford to buy a tank even with the rebate. (Amongst other misspent taxpayers’ dollars, the $150 million dollars proposed for the Federal Election Campaign advertising would be better spent on securing clean drinking water for many Australians.)

Recycling sewage water for drinking purposes is a Quick Fix Bandaid solution. It might be worth thinking about the fact that households consume rather a small amount of all the water consumed so we should be using recycled wastewater for all other purposes. The greatest demand on our supplies is agriculture.

With regards to my comparison between recycled water and treated dam water? Recycled water is a loose term and used loosely by many. All water is recycled so I don’t know to which you are referring. However, recycled wastewater should only be used for the purposes listed in the guidelines set down by the WHO and EPA and drinking it isn’t one of them.

To be continued...

Continued….

Treated dam water: Chlorinated water makes me ill so as far as I’m concerned treated dam water is no good for your health either. It does have one thing going for it. You can use a water filter that will remove the chlorine, which is what I have to do for drinking, cooking and showering.

What do I think is the best option, or combination, for Toowoomba and for all of SEQ?

Whatever we do will cost. Water conservation and maximising the efficient use of existing water supplies is essential. With my limited knowledge, in a nutshell I would suggest we reduce consumption, install tanks, reuse water (as in freeing up drinking water supplies by recycling wastewater), drill for water (an exploratory drilling program of bore holes and aquifers throughout all of South-East Queensland), build desalination plants and pipelines wherever it is possible. If we must build dams, then let’s build them in the best possible Catchment Areas. Stop the continual wastage of water from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) by capping all the remaining free flowing bores.

Of course we can’t build a desalination plant for Toowoomba but there are other options that will supplement our water supply, one of which, drilling bores, is already underway I believe. However, use of the GAB should only be short term. Toowoomba Council can lease water from Condamine irrigators; use coal seam gas water; and if necessary, long term, it could build another dam. The State could help by allocating funds for businesses to save water and switch to recycled wastewater where appropriate.

And last but not least - we could all pray for rain

Why couldn'tTownsville build a desalination plant ?

Sorry, misread Toowoomba as Townsville

Very good Amber. Thanks for that.

Just one thing; my prime concern - the rapid growth rate in SEQ.

Do you think that attempts to mitigate the rate of growth, ie the population influx, should be a part of the plan?

I don’t know what the growth rate is in Toowoomba or the vicinity, or how significant this factor is there. But it is a huge factor in SEQ overall, as it pertains to water-provision...and just about all other resource-supply and quality of life issues.

Ludwig, silence is preferable to voicing your ignorance…you’ve conveniently ignored the reference to the Burdekin Dam (and the link to prove it).

You clearly have a difficulty with the concept of North-west…some of the northern rivers which run to the sea in North Queensland NORTH of Ayr are; the Mulgrave, Barron, Russell, Johnstone, Herbert, Seymour and the Haughton Rivers…whether they are North-west or North-east is immaterial…they are still NORTH of Ayr.

You seem to consider that the Haughton River is a lake or puddle…I’ll put it simply…if I travel from Ayr to Townsville (North-west of Ayr), I will cross the Haughton River which continues to travel eastwards to the coast after that point. So, Ludwig, you’re still wrong…if I will have to cross the river to go North…then the river is North of Ayr…whether North-west/east or directly North.

Glen-writer? What’s your point…? Not sure if you have electricity or live in a tent with kerosene lamps…but most people recognise that lights work at 3:33am too…mine do, how about yours? Lots of people work…or even play after midnight…don’t be so small-minded.

Since this thread is about sewerage and water re-cycling perhaps the above posters might ask if they’ve lost all relevance with ‘loopy’ and ‘light’ IQ attempts at derision…

Amber4350 rightly states…‘Our first option should be recycling sewage to free up drinking water in preference to directly replenishing current supplies.’

…and has given lots of options for the use of recycled sewerage…including for it’s current use in Toowoomba on farmlands…for food production.

Your following comment, Glenwriter…confirms why her concerns are well-founded…so what’s your problem?

If waste water was exclusively used for the purposes amber4350 identified, there would be plenty of water from existing supplies (supplemented with tank water) for all human consumption indefinitely…but that’s not what government wants to achieve…bottled water has to become a ‘necessity’ of life…as it has around the world.

tbc...

Cont…

I drink water from a tank too Yabby…bore water…filtered…and I re-cycle much of our domestic waste-water. There are cost considerations for anyone considering either rainwater or bore water infrastructure for personal use…and instead of supporting and encouraging it…governments around the country are proposing that use of either be charged an additional rate of usage.

…Crikey.com is an interesting reference if you’re suggesting $1Million isn’t a large donation from Westpac, Yabby. I’m sure Stephen Mayne’s (Crikey.com) comments at a Westpac AGM would differ from those you’ve offered. You didn’t list the corresponding taxpayer-funded grants either…how you’ve modified your remarks on donations now…I feel sure that most shareholders would NOT share your largesse regarding political donations of hundreds of thousands or a million $’s.

Your obscene profit declarations for Westpac only emphasises the effects of government policy designer-made for the corporates at the expense of their customers…Australian consumers.

Your simple-mindedness on China, Africa and population issues…explores nothing of the reality in those countries Yabby…you repeatedly attempt to justify your blinkered view to the exclusion of all other factors, e.g., corrupt governments, wars, horrendous infant-mortality rates in Africa and positive results from the introduction of personal ‘ownership’ instead of communist-based total government control in China…

Cue from your surroundings, Yabby and open your mind to include all relevant facts.

Yes Meg, sure Meg, three bags full Meg.

Go on, tell us again that the Haughton River is in any way north of Ayr, or that the Burdekin Dam is in any way west of the lower Burdekin agricultural area, or that it is not west of a point between Proserpine and Mackay.

If we tipped Queensland 90 degrees to the right we would be somewhere near your perception of the world.

This is quite fascinating. I haven’t come across this extent of denial or rationalisation ever before. It is a fully new experience.

Of course there are infrastructure costs involved in putting in
a rainwater tank Meg, but not very much. Given the value of a house,
its not much. Why waste all that runoff and send it out to sea, then
complain about water supplies? Next thing people complain about the
price of water. They should get off their butts and help solve their
own problems, not expect the world to do it for them. Put in a tank,
solve most of your own problems, all very simple really.

I don't care what Crikey wrote, he is chasing an audience, I am not.
Fact is, there were no outrageous figures in that list. Fact is,
to my knowledge nobody complained at the Westpac AGM about political
donations. I'm a Westpac shareholder. IMHO Morgan has done a good
job running Westpac. Yup, his wife is an ex Hawke Govt Minister,
so a donation was made, its trivial in the bigger scheme of things.
See the big picture Meg, not the pimples on your arse :)

Of course infant mortality is high in Africa. If people have far more
children, then they can afford to feed and clothe, kids will die.
If there is no tax base, there is no money for Govts to spend either.
Most people in Africa live off the land, they don't work for corportations and they don't pay tax. So Govts have little to spend.
So kids die, if families cannot grow enough food to feed them and lack of family planning means that they pop them out one a year.

Ludwig,

Population growth doesn’t ‘just happen’. It’s something that happens all the time. It is inevitable and there should not be a problem coping with population growth if there is proper management and adequate investment in water infrastructure.

One of the reasons we have a census every 5 years is to help plan basic services. Regular updates of statictics from ABS are readily available to Government.

The Premier has quoted population growth as one of the prime causes for the water crisis. If he had put some thought into that he might have decided it's not a particularly good argument. But then maybe he doesn't realise there are some people in Queensland who can actually think for themselves.

If you care to do a ‘google’ search with the words "The Population Growth - Highlights and Trends, Queensland 2005" you will be able to read a report on population growth in South East Queensland.

With regard to population growth in Toowoomba, there has been a steady growth pattern since I moved here in 1965. In 1993 the population was 85,000 people. In 2003 it was 92,555. According to the source of those figures, that’s an average growth of 0.8% per annum.

The average growth rate in Queensland was 2% over the same ten-year period. The average annual growth rate for Australia for the five years to 2005 was 1.2%. (ABS)

Amber, you say;

“Population growth….. it’s something that happens all the time. It is inevitable…”

Well I’ll have to beg to differ. I think that one of the key things in the whole water issue, and in all resource-supply issues, and indeed in the bottom-line issue of sustainability…is to NOT think of population growth as a given. It simply HAS to be one of the primary things that we need to mitigate.

What sort of a plan do we have if we just accept that rapid population influx will continue in areas with resource stress, traffic congestion or many other declining quality of life factors? The SEQ Regional Plan will “guide growth and development …over the next two decades”. It makes no attempt to slow the rate of growth or to work towards a limit to population. It makes no attempt to direct Qld towards sustainability.

This crazy mentality of facilitating one of the major factors that is causing us great concern and collective pain is….well, crazy!

The water issue sits right in this paradigm.

“The Premier has quoted population growth as one of the prime causes for the water crisis.”

Yes, which is quite amazing for someone who has promoted population growth in SEQ!

So what is he going to do about mitigating growth? Presumably nothing, which means that every improvement made in water-provision and efficiency of usage will work towards facilitating an ever-bigger population…. which will lead us into more resource-stress issues.

Amber, you may think that a growth rate of 2% in Qld over the last decade is very moderate. But at that rate the population and has grown by more than 22%, or almost a quarter - which is a huge increase in a very short time. And of course the growth rate has been much faster in SEQ.

Ten years ago, we could all be excused for thinking that SEQ had a decent reserve water supply, ie a decent buffer for dry times.

But with just 2% p.a. growth, it has been eroded almost completely. It is any wonder that SEQ is in water-supply crisis?

Woops. In reference to the last line of my last post – the growth rate in SEQ has been well above 2%p.a. for a long time.

So it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that a decent water buffer only a few years ago has translated into a crisis situation today.

Yes, the so-called drought is a factor. But really, we should have always been prepared for the inevitability of a series of dry years. So the current low rainfall phase should not be seen as the main cause of this situation.

You have every right to your opinion Ludwig.

My opinion is that the cause for the water crisis is the lack of good management and the lack of adequate investment in water infrastructure.

One instance is the absurdity that in the driest continent on earth we should be talking about mandating tanks to new buildings now instead of 40 years ago. But no, the ‘powers that be’ wanted to make money by selling us water.

Because of the lack of good management and a government who is either not capable or not willing to examine practical alternatives we now have a situation where it is proposed we drink recycled sewage water.

The Toowoomba "Toilet to Tap Poll" was a test case for this government. It didn't work out the way they wanted and now they have taken it to an election vote. If it is returned to power on 9/9 the Premier states he will have a mandate to do exactly that. He intends to set in motion a situation that has unknown consequences to human health and the environment and will do it with a smile on his face.

Drinking recycled sewage water should be the very last resort, not the first option. It's madness!

But, if drinking recycled sewage is okay with you, then you go right ahead and vote for the Labor government in this state. That's your democratic right.

"One instance is the absurdity that in the driest continent on earth we should be talking about mandating tanks to new buildings now instead of 40 years ago. But no, the ‘powers that be’ wanted to make money by selling us water."

Amber I think you totally ignore the fact that technology has
changed dramatically, so what makes sense today, made no sense
back then. The old tin tanks were in fact a pain in the arse,
awkward to build, in rigid shapes, they'd rust out fairly
quickly etc. So mandating everyone to use them would have been
not very smart.

Have a look at modern tanks today, popped out of moulds in every
conceivable shape, so they can be fitted along walls or whatever,
you name it, it can be done. If properly made, they will outlast
tin tanks or even fibreglass tanks many times and are actually
pretty cheap. So it makes perfect sense to install them now
and stop wasting all that water that falls on your roof

Ludwig you could clearly do with a few more new experiences…to broaden your mind to accept facts when they present themselves…

Yabby, you’ve obviously got money-to-burn…try sinking a bore…then tell me the cost isn’t much…infrastructure (providing for permanent-household-supply in most areas where town supply is unavailable) would include a bore…and installation of either a septic system (depending on soil-types and land-area…significant costs can also apply) or a domestic-sewerage-treatment-and-recycling-facility…(also costly).

‘Put in a tank, solve most of your own problems, all very simple really.’

Hmmm…well that’s you ‘simply’ sorted, Yabby…so there’s no problem then for the rest of Australia?

‘…he (Crikey) is chasing an audience, I am not.’ No, of course you’re not Yabby ROFL… : ))

‘Fact is, there were no outrageous figures in that list.’

You really love being the corporate lackey, don’t you Yabby? Either that or you’ve got more money than sense… : )) …or is it both?

‘Yup, his wife is an ex Hawke Govt Minister,’

So, you’re suggesting that the donation was made because ‘his wife is an ex Hawke Govt Minister’ … and that’s ok? That’s not ok by law, Yabby…careful what you suggest…company money doesn’t belong to ‘the board’…or their political whims…

‘…its trivial in the bigger scheme of things.’

…in yibberish yabberish, (your own dialect) you mean that if it suits YOUR purposes…accepted-standards-and-rules-don’t-apply…hmmm…curious…

‘See the big picture Meg, not the pimples on your arse :)’

Yabby, that’s YOUR bathroom mirror you’re looking in, I’m not there…you should wash more carefully and eat sensibly and you’ll probably fix that problem…oh, and drink plenty of clean water…

…simple you said? Well, yes you are, but Yabby most people in Africa can’t live off the land as there is insufficient infrastructure to assist them to either work the land effectively or even basics like seeds to plant for crops…or WATER where it is necessary…then there are corrupt governments skimming foreign aid supplies and wars to ensure people are kept poverty stricken…

‘So kids die…’

tbc...

Cont...

Ludwig, how ‘loopy’ is that? Are you suggesting that Queenslanders, “turn ‘dem pardners backet da borda?”

…are they ‘popping out’ lots of baby-Queenslanders every year? Do you realize that most growth in Queensland’s population is those-pesky-southerners who just love-to-hate-Queenslanders but can’t seem to stay away from the place…and then stay!

In fact Yabby, those ‘old tin tanks’ and wells were often removed or filled in respectively because of drownings as well as damage to their structure, once town water was available…then government legislation changed to ensure standards for water collection and storage…so some tanks/wells had to go as they were deemed unsafe.

...and on this I agree…water should be collected in storage tanks (with lockable lids)…but Yabby, you ignore the fact that many of your fellow Australians cannot afford to install tanks, let alone any additional bores or filtration systems…governments could offer incentives here, even if only for those on middle to lower incomes.

‘My opinion is that the cause for the water crisis is the lack of good management and the lack of adequate investment in water infrastructure.’ Amber4350

Good point Amber… : )

Well, I guess Amber knows a thing or two…it’s not just what you know, it’s who you know sometimes, not just in the ALP, Yabby…look what I found…

‘Water projects built ahead of time under Coalition

A Queensland Coalition Government will set aside $1 billion to reinstate a long term, water infrastructure development program that was dumped by Labor, to ensure water projects are delivered ahead of time, rather than just when a crisis develops. 23/08/2006

Rural water reform plan announced by Coalition

A Coalition Government will scrap Labor's proposed water taxes, get water catchment planning back on track and give rural water users the option of managing their own water supply schemes. 23/08/2006

Recycled water projects and water rebates scheme to receive financial boost under Coalition

Businesses would receive financial assistance to switch from using drinking water to using recycled water and funding to assist all Queenslanders save water in their homes would be doubled under a Coalition Government. 23/08/2006’

Hmmm...good thinking 99!

Meg, you should read what I wrote! I never mentioned bores. I
mentioned tanks, as an addition to Govt supplies. That
might cost around 3K$. There is a thread on this topic
on OLO. Most homeowners have an asset that has increased
by a huge amount of capital gain in the last few years.
Adding 3k$ to a mortgage would be neither here nor there,
they would still be rich.

Ok so you want a subsidy to put in your tank. You are
one of these less then smart voters, who don't realise that
Govts don't make money, they just spend yours. So you
would prefer a Govt who takes it from your backpocket and
puts it in your front pocket. Clever you :)

My suggestion about Westpac is that shareholders are happy with
the job that Morgan and the board have done in running the company
and the decisions they have made. Again the big picture matters,
not the little picture. Considering the size of the bank and
its turnover etc, 1 million$ is neither here nor there. No
shareholders complained about any political donations, so clearly
other shareholders see it the way I see it.

Meg, people have been living off the land in Africa since forever,
now you say they can't. The real problem in Africa is that our
darling missionaries went there, gave them vaccines etc to halt
diseases, so the population boomed. Had those same missionaries
provided some family planning help, the population growth would
have been more stable, rather then some of the highest birthrates
in the world. In much of Africa the problem is overpopulation for
the given environment. Farming fails, when plots of land per family
become smaller and smaller. Next thing you have genocide, as
happened in Catholic Rwanda.

“My opinion is that the cause for the water crisis is the lack of good management and the lack of adequate investment in water infrastructure.”

Agreed Amber.

But this seems to be at odds with your defence of past Toowoomba councils in your post of 1 August where you wrote;

“You might also like to know that if it had not been for the good management and future planning of previous councils, particularly when Mr Berghofer was a member of the council from 1973 - 1992, Toowoomba would have run dry long ago.”

I guess we’ll just have to disagree that a fundamental part of good management is the management of the increasing demand side of the equation, as well as the supply side.

I really battle to understand the one-sided approach that so many people seem to take, which just accepts that continuous growth will happen, no matter what its consequences. No offence, but it just doesn’t add up at all to me, especially in SEQ where growth has been so rapid, or in Toowoomba either, where the growth rate has been about 0.8% p.a. for the last 13 years or more, which has led to a significant increase in population and demand for water of about 11% since 1993.

Good points Yabby, and easy to read. Meg, you need to watch
how much page you spead out.Better still, take up blogging
plenty of free ones if you care to look, then you can preach
to your hearts content.

My son-in-laws family grazing business put down bores 2 years
back, searching for water and came up with none. Expensive, as
it cost $6000.00 to hire men & rig.

I experienced heavy water restrictions on family farm, one dish
of water to wash in per day, and had to fetch drinking water from
the well the cattle used, up until the floods came and almost
washed us away, in the late 50's, in Queensland's South East.

Yabby,

Don't you realise that when you plan a new building you use the most up-to-date water tank available at the time?

Since you've brought the subject up, it’s been a very long time since the only type of tank available on the market was what you call 'old tin tanks'. They have been made from galvanised iron for as long as I can remember.

Metal tanks have continued to improve throughout the years and are still the most common type of tank in use today. They are also available in a rectangular shape to fit under the eaves. I will also hazard a guess that Poly tanks have been around for at least 20 years if not longer.

Most importantly, it doesn't matter what material a tank is made from it will still hold water

But Amber, the materials are all-important, in terms of cost, durability, flexibility, purity, etc.

I think Yabby is right; the changing materials have had a great deal to do with the changing policy on tanks.

“But no, the ‘powers that be’ wanted to make money by selling us water."

I’m not that cynical. I think the development of a public water-supply network was eminently sensible, and remains so even with vastly improved tank technology.

Anyway, it is well and truly time to promote the wide-scale implementation of tanks, despite my concerns about contamination, possibly setting ourselves up for a bigger crisis if we overdo reliance on tanks, and of course the facilitation of continuous population growth in the absence of an overall sustainability strategy.

--
On 20 August I wrote;

“[Meg] You have shown yourself to be fairly and squarely in the ‘too loopy’ category.”

Seems like that was an understatement!! (:>|

Amber, perhaps in your part of the world, metal tanks are common,
certainly not here in WA. Where I live most people rely on their
own water systems, much of it rainwater. Storing water in tanks
is one of the costs that has dropped dramatically in real terms,
over the last 20 years.

Metal tanks largely went out the window when chopper guns were
brought into the fibreglass tank business, which dramatically
dropped their cost of manufacture. Now Poly tanks have largely
replaced fibreglass tanks, in terms of cost, durability, flexability,
ease of manufacture etc.

Perhaps we need to send some Western Australians over there,
to show you Queenslanders how to make good, cost effective tanks :)

My point remains: People complain about not having access to
enough good quality water, yet most waste all that water that
falls on their roofs. That just doesent make sense in a country
where water is getting scarcer.

Yabby, I’m not asking for a subsidy for anything…you should read my posts where I said that I USE TANK WATER FROM A BORE…goes to prove you don’t feel you need to get the facts before putting your feet right in up to the knees…

You assume a lot when you suggest that having a mortgage on a home makes anyone RICH…you have no idea of the sacrifices or difficulties they may be making or their ability to repay another $3,000 … or if the cost will be considerably more…not everyone just looks out for No 1…others have families…

RE: Africa, suffice to say that your previously stated comments on other threads regarding black African babies…are as contemptible as your suggestion that these people should not have access to vaccines…perhaps you feel the same way about indigenous Australians…?

You deviously failed to mention that the infant mortality rate is also extremely high by world standards…

You are one sad example of man’s inhumanity to man by anyone’s standards…

Elida, not sure how to ‘spead’ out a page…but you are welcome to blog/preach/misspell/confuse yourself elsewhere also – it’s still a free country and OLO still allows free speech.

…perhaps you should have ‘divined’ for water…excellent results…your cost of $6000 for two bores is very cheap by average standards. So now that you have confirmed that it IS an expensive exercise to sink bores – including the cost of unsuccessful ones…what’s the purpose of your post, other than to try to disallow free-speech from anyone you disagree with?

‘Loopy’ Ludwig is as usual lost somewhere in a pedantic panic!

Again…let’s not lose sight of where Toowoomba sits in the real world…population around 80-90,000…government wants local-farmers to sacrifice their water-supply and locals to drink-re-cycled-sewerage…

Rio De Janeiro with a population of 10 Million…doesn’t drink re-cycled sewerage…and has adequate supplies of drinking-water…that’s-10-MILLION-PEOPLE!…who’s kidding who?…Toowoomba-water-CRISIS?

Perhaps our governments could learn something from Brazil-a-‘3rd-world’country?

Makes the whole-sewerage-for-drinking look like a bad joke…and no-one has answered the question, what’ll local farmers get to water crops once they lose the treated-sewerage…?

What I have shown Meg, is that your conspiracy theory about
bottled water and political donations etc, is in fact a heap
of rubbish!

Fact is that anyone can buy a small rainwater tank and tap
into rolls royce water, straight from their roof. Expenditure
is purely about priorities. If you want rolls royce water, its
cheaply available, you just need to get off your butt.

Re Africa, I never said anywhere that Africans should not have
access to vaccines. I said that they go hand in hand with family
planning, for good reasons. If you are going to tinker with nature,
think through the consequences of your actions. If they are unsustainable, then think again, no matter what your religious
persuasion. Indigenous Australians have possibilities to access
family planning, just like other Australians and people living in
the West. Sadly, that right is denied to many women in the third
world. Often its religious nuts, doing what they can to deny those
women their rights. The result is overpopulation, hunger and
much suffering in Africa.

Nice that you think that Rio is the way to do it. Yup, they have
2m of rainfall a year, so it should be easy, they are surrounded
by tropical rainforest. Given that most of the slums in Rio
have public standpipes, so people lug home water in buckets,
no doubt those dishwashers are not using much!

Farmers will have to crunch the numbers, like everyone else, to
see if what they are doing, is actually profitable. It takes
about 500l of water to grow a kg of wheat, worth 20c. Given that
water is worth far more then 40c per Kl, it might in fact be far
more profitable for them to sell the water to the city slickers,
forget the crops and go fishing or something.

Since we've been discussing water supplies, demographics,
poverty and Africa, here is an interesting URL to an
article in the Guardian in London about this very topic.
We humans ignore these things at our peril.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1857730,00.html

What I’ve shown, Yabby,is your corporate mates’re guilty as charged…e.g., NCP…all major parties support it because it delivers market-control and massive profits to transnationals…no theory…you’ve clearly no capacity to check donations or grants lists to compare the two…

Unsurprising really…facts really aren’t your forte…

…you’ve also little perception of rainfall diversity in this country…rainwater from many roof areas in urban and rural communities may also contain contaminants (e.g, spray drift or toxins from vehicle exhausts)…it’ll also need filtering…another cost. Not insurmountable, but not owning the home, or living in a high-rise’ll limit likelihood of the tank option being applied anyway. Perhaps you could take your own advice and ‘get-off-your-butt’ to see how-the-other-half-live…not everyone can afford additional costs involved in procuring additional water. For some, available water may have to come from underground…involving costly bores, pumps and the electricity, solar panels or fuel to pump the water…you need to consider concepts from everyone’s perspective, Yabby.

RE: Africa…’ The real problem in Africa is that our
darling missionaries went there, gave them vaccines etc to halt
diseases, so the population boomed.’

…so in your opinion…giving ‘them vaccines, etc to halt diseases’ is ‘the real problem in Africa’…

‘I never said anywhere that Africans should not have
access to vaccines.’

…Yabby, make some attempt to stick to a semblance of truth…that’s exactly what you said…

For you to talk about tinkering with nature…would be laughable if your previous comments about African babies and chimps weren’t so spurious…your suggestions involve considerable tinkering with nature…and nature is certainly proving to be an exacting accountant with the tinkering that has already happened over the past few generations.

RE: Your article from the Guardian…the article confirms…’ Part of the reason is cultural, with bigger families seen as a sign of security. It is also because of fears of high levels of infant mortality.’

If even third world Brazil can provide drinking water for 10 million people or so (without resorting to recycled sewerage)…then water for around 80,000 Toowoombans should be a piece of cake in Australia…

tbc...

Cont...

In parts of the world which receive little or no annual rain, sails have been built on cliff-tops to catch moisture in cloud banks and provide water that way…but Australian governments prefer to provide options they know are unacceptable to many in order that their corporate mates can profit still further…conspiracy? Not likely…

Some parts of northern Australia can have in excess of 2m of water a month…but a serious lack of forethought or planning, means that will pour tonnes of topsoil and debris out to sea and on the GBR in FNQ…amongst other places.

‘Farmers will have to crunch the numbers, like everyone else, to
see if what they are doing, is actually profitable. It takes
about 500l of water to grow a kg of wheat, worth 20c.’

…Perhaps you mean that’s what your corporate mates are prepared to pay them…

‘Given that water is worth far more then 40c per Kl, it might in fact be far
more profitable for them to sell the water to the city slickers,
forget the crops and go fishing or something.’

So, what will Yabby eat once Coles and Woolies run out of milk and bread? …or war in various parts of the world cuts off our markets for foodstuffs we’d like to eat? Your denial of all rational consequential thought will not feed you when Australia’s farmers are priced out of existence or denied the water needed to produce their crops…Europeans know what it is to starve when you fail to appreciate the necessity of a farming community. They’ve learned the lessons of history and continue to show a determination to remain as self-sufficient as possible when it comes to their food supplies…likewise the USA…

As an island nation, we would be foolhardy in the extreme not to do the same…for defense alone, let alone for economic reasons.

…perhaps you’d do yourself a favour if you went fishing yourself Yabby and started to look outside your narrow little square…and think of the real picture…the whole picture…for more than just you…

Meg, you have shown absolutaly nothing, except make vague conspiracy
theory claims, without any factual evidence.

What many politicians as well as economists are saying, is that
we should use the water that we do have, more wisely and they
are correct. Sheesh, luckily for Queenslanders you don't run the
treasury there, the state would be broke really fast, with your
hairbrain schemes of harvesting clouds from cliffs etc and then
alot of that water gets used to grow grass to make hamburger cows
for McDonald's in America.

You also show a lack of knowledge about farming. Milk and bread
are produced in abundance without irrigation in Australia,
so thats another theory of yours down the toilet of inaccuracies.

Perhaps you lack the attention span to digest what I wrote on
vaccination. It goes hand in hand with family planning, or you
get exactly the problems that you have in Africa. ie. a population
explosion, poverty and hunger. Africa's population has increased
from 133 million to 800 million in the last century. Unless that
is addressed, it will increase to 1.8 billion by 2050, according
to the UN. More poverty, more hunger, more misery.

In fact its a global issue. It took 1600 years for the world's population to go from 300 million to 600 million. It took just
12 years to add the last billion to our numbers.

Meg, you need to get back to true Australian values. Aussies
used to solve their own problems, achieve things themselves.
Now people like you think that Govt needs to do everything for
you. If you want good drinking water, its falling on your roof,
so use it.

‘Sheesh, luckily for Queenslanders you don't run the
treasury there, the state would be broke really fast, with your
hairbrain schemes of harvesting clouds from cliffs etc and then
alot of that water gets used to grow grass to make hamburger cows
for McDonald's in America.’

Hmmm…now there’s some irrational Yabby at his ‘best’…the ‘hairbrain scheme’ isn’t mine…nor did I suggest it for use here…Toowoomba doesn’t have the required cliffs directly off the ocean, nor the other factors necessary, as exists in places using that particular method of cloud harvesting…you see Yabby, you’ve just proven that you are incapable of looking outside the square…you mind is cemented shut…with little to occupy itself with.

…as for the Qld treasury…they’re on a fast track to nowhere already…without the present resources boom, they’d be history overnight. The present government’s management history is appalling – in every respect…including health, the most visible.

While you’re flushing your ‘toilet of inaccuracies’ you might accept that I used the analogy of bread and milk to represent all food products…in fact the Victorian dairy farmers would dispute your arguments regarding water…they’re facing horrific price rises on their irrigation water for the coming year and are down to 7% of their allocated water being actually sold to them. Eungella (near Mackay, Qld) has had their dairy industry obliterated (compliments of National-destruction-of-all-things-Australian-Policy) and Milla Milla and Malanda on the Atherton Tablelands (which largely relies on rainwater for cropping and dairying) has had their dairy industry decimated also.

RE: ‘You also show a lack of knowledge about farming.’

No Yabby, I have a significant knowledge and interest in farming and farmers in this country as I see a great nation ruined by short-sighted and spurious politicians and bureaucrats who are feted and funded by an increasingly arrogant and destructive corporate sector…tragic that Australia has one of the most unproductive corporate sectors in the developed world…with one of the highest failure rates (at 29% and rising), yet they are what largely dictates government policy in this country…on both sides of politics.

Tbc…

Cont…

RE: ‘attention span’

ROFL…people in glass houses and all that, Yabby…you clearly have problems focusing on a train of thought…from one sentence to the next…in fact, you often self-correct (or destruct) before the following paragraph.

RE: Africa…countries like Uganda have population problems created by government policies…their government insists the people must have large families to survive…so that the government attracts higher funding from aid agencies…you have the bull by the tail again Yabby.

RE: ‘true Australian values.’

True Australian values have for the past two centuries been Judeo-Christian values…Yabby…I suggest it is you who needs to ‘get back to them’…

As for solving my own problems and achieving things for myself…read my posts again and jot down some notes so you overcome your difficulties with attention span…I don’t ask or expect from government what I am capable of myself…I have my own bores and sewerage systems…I do not have any town supplied water or sewerage on any of my properties…and open your mind, Yabby…rain doesn’t fall adequately on all the roof-areas of all Australians to supply all their needs.

/(*~*)\

RE: relying on ‘the authorities’ to put in place legislation to protect the best interests of Australians…here’s an example of who ends up ‘protecting’ the public in the aftermath of the corporates having their way with government policy…the USA is a little further down the track, but we’re catching up fast…

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=70089&m=2FQN831&c=qzczqvaujggwedy

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=70241&m=2FQN831&c=qzczqvaujggwedy

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=70111&m=2FQN831&c=qzczqvaujggwedy

…another final water ‘purification’ method…still not 100% able to remove e-coli… (#~#)

http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=70203&m=2FQN831&c=qzczqvaujggwedy

...check the facts, Yabby…those that should be safeguarding the public interest here aren’t any better…the Federal government legislated to allow the introduction of caffeine into softdrinks at the request of softdrink manufacturers and against the best interests of the public, particularly children…

…I have NO confidence in government to ‘solve my problems’ and certainly won’t leave it up to them to take care of my interests…in any respect…nor have I ever suggested I do.

<(o_o)>

I think outside the square all the time Meg, thats why I've done
well in life! The thing is, you've totally missed what some politicians and economists have been saying, which makes sense.

A relatively small amount of our total water is used for domestic
needs. A hell of a lot of water is also wasted. Trading water,
rather then blowing billions of $, makes perfect sense to use
it efficiently. Instead of thinking about that, you jump to
conspiracy theories.

The Aussie dairy industry could learn from NZ, where farmers own
Fonterra and are doing well. Fonterra, ie NZ farmers, now own
more and more of milk processing here! Aussie farmers in both
meat and milk, need to get involved in value adding their own
products. NZ farmers are moving over here en masse, to take
advantage of the opportunities here in the dairy industry.

Water in the whole ES has one big problem, no rainfall. After so
many dry years, perhaps its climate change causing it after all.
If it is, then the whole of ES agriculture is in deep doo doo and
will have to reinvent themselves to suit the new climate. We
have had to do that here, with 25% less rainfall then in the past.

Religion is the problem in Uganda Meg. The Bush regime, driven
by fundies and Catholics, gave them 200 million to get rid of condoms
and go back to crossing their legs for Jesus. Ugandan women still
don't have free access to family planning etc, so are forced to have
far more kids then they want.

Getting back to the recycled water side of things.

I am all for recycled water, primarily for agriculture and industry, thus saving drinking water for, well, drinking.

Water conservation, like energy renewal, will be solved by using all available means and not just a one 'magic' solution:

on the home front: water tanks, recycle 'grey' water,

by government: legislation on appropriate water use and environmental studies, upgrade storm water run-off for use rather than washing debris into bays (as an example),

by industry: installing their own water tanks and using recycled water etc.

Maybe the problem with the Toowoomba referendum was that the wrong question was asked;

Should recycled water be used by farmers and industry, instead of using the town's drinking water?

The answer is "yes" but unfortunately that's not the question Scout.

In Queensland, the re-election of the Beattie Government is going to make sure that all of Queensland will drink recycled sewage water. There will be no choice. The Toowoomba Poll was the last bastion of democracy.

The choice of the people of Toowoomba will mean nothing if the Beattie Government is returned to power.

There are better and safer options. September 9 will be the only opportunity for the people of this State to take a stance against this insanity.

I say to the people of Queensland:

If you want recycled sewage in your drinking water then vote Labor.

If you don't want recycled sewage in your drinking water then make an opposing vote

Amber

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that recycling water will be a private, for profit industry, and as such I can't see the Libs being all that averse to the concept, in the long term. I humbly suggest that they are only against its introduction to curry favour in the upcoming election - not that I'm a cynic, but.....

Maybe time to consider independents or (shock horror) the Greens.

Scout,

There is no doubt in my mind that the “mighty dollar” drives this maniacal scheme.

We do not control much of anything, but we do willingly participate by the choices we make. Those choices have everything to do with the outcome. One thing we do control is the choice we make when we cast our vote at the polling booth.

It might be the time to remember that there is no such thing as freedom of choice unless there is freedom to refuse.

Whatever may happen in the future with another government in power is not the concern we have at this moment in time.

Recycled sewage in our drinking water is a foregone conclusion with the Beattie Government - there will be no choice.

On this point, I have to agree with both Scout and Amber4320...Beattie's bent is to have the Smart State drinking *#&%!

Nevermind it's 'commonsensical' to use recycled-waste-water for agriculture and industry...much cheaper too as less treatment is required.

Queensland's Major opposition parties' policies are practically non-existent - the old-tried-and-true-formula for change-of-government is that new governments only get elected when old government is so bad they simply get defeated and get replaced by the best-of-a-bad-bunch...well opposition's not putting up much of a fight in Queensland are they? Last State election had a smattering of industry opponents to the government...this time the media aren't even allowing them a run.

Not a lot of good, investigative journalism in Queensland perhaps...health-system decimated, water-issues crippling city and bush, government disasters one-after-another...and Beattie's approval-rating survives. Why? Because the opposition is pitiful and their policies aren't so different when it comes to the issues crippling the country...National (destruction-of-all-things-Australian) Competition Policy is supported by all-major-parties.

Scout, perhaps Queenslanders should be looking-to-Independents, but how many are standing? Major parties have got election-funding sewn-up with the corporate-sector by providing policies to suit them.

Independents face as many obstacles in-their-path as the governments (major-parties on both sides of politics) can legislate.

The situation is that Australia-wide, we are copping results of party candidates with little ability, other than willingness to bow to the party heirachy...sooner or later they are going to face a television camera and come unstuck if they haven't got a minder to think for them...Dr Flegg provided proof when the Federal Libs sent a media-minder for him, to keep him away from them.

Beattie's Ministers were sheltered from media half-way through the last election and this time have'nt seen the-light-of-day-at-all...likewise opposition-candidates and shadow-ministers.

RE: Greens, they'd stand MOST guilty of choosing candidates-off-the-Centrelink-line...anyone-who'll-stand...their candidate in a Townsville seat has provided NO CREDIT for the Greens.

...election coverage wouldn't encourage anyone to buy a newspaper - it's non-existent...that only helps major parties and allows NO minor-party or Independent-opposition, same applies to short-election-campaigns at minimum-weeks-allowable...designed to polarise the vote around the major parties and away from any 'protest' or alternative vote.

“I say to the people of Queensland: If you want recycled sewage in your drinking water then vote Labor. If you don't want recycled sewage in your drinking water then make an opposing vote”

Amber I understand your reasoning, but I don’t think we should be espousing anyone to vote according to single issues. Let’s all look at the big picture and vote accordingly.

“Whatever may happen in the future with another government in power is not the concern we have at this moment in time.”

This is a bit dangerous. All of us should most definitely be thinking about all the consequences of having another government in power, or the same government, both pertaining to immediate issues and long-term issues.

Ludwig,

Peter Beattie has stated very clearly this election is about Water and Health. He declared if he is returned to power he will have a mandate to put recycled sewage into drinking water.

Peter Beattie’s stance on drinking recycled sewage water has gone from an ‘Armageddon Solution’ to a ‘First Option’. He was “loudly silent” during the Poll but in the wake of the NO vote he has an 11th hour solution to SE Queensland’s water crisis with the idea of piping recycled sewage into Wivenhoe Dam.

The Task force set up by the Beattie Government to find solutions to Toowoomba’s water crisis comprises two (2) ‘NO’ case campaigners and five (5) 'YES' campaigners. How democratic is that?

It might be worth mentioning that the State Government sponsored Brisbane River Festival has a strong focus on trying to convince people to drink recycled sewage water. Toowoomba’s Potty Mouthed Mayor Diane Thorley will also be at River Fest to address the people on the subject of drinking recycled sewage water.

Mind you, I don’t begrudge her some extra pocket money she will need when she is ousted out of her position next Council election.

Don't let Peter Beattie pull the wool over your eyes AGAIN with his ‘election promises’! This bloke is so Media Slick he could sell freezers to the Eskimos. According to Mayor Thorley, Peter Beattie is, “Slick as catsh-t, he’s as slick as catsh-t on a linoleum floor.”

Take a good look at how quickly Queensland has gone down the drain since this government came into power. It’s a real pity he isn’t just as slick with the ability to Govern.

This is the ONLY opportunity for Queenslanders to choose whether they want recycled sewage in their drinking water or not and whether they wish to continue to live with a rapidly declining health system.

The Coalition does offer well-planned policies that will benefit the people of Queensland, the economy and the environment. Particularly when it comes to Water and Health

UPDATE:

From the Toowoomba Chronicle 7th September 2006

TOOWOOMBA will not run out of water.

That’s the promise of Toowoomba Mayor Dianne Thorley after some heavy-duty number crunching this week revealed the city’s existing bore production had been underestimated.

Initial predictions that an extra 20 viable basalt bores would be needed were revised and it was revealed just 13 would successfully yield the 5000 mega litres a year required.

However, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines is still considering the council’s requested increased allocation.

Cr Thorley said the bores, as well as the planned drillings into the Great Artesian Basin, should stave off the need for the city to import more expensive emergency water supplies from Cambooya and Oakey.
Five of the nine drillings around the city have already been successful. But drilling will continue on the extra seven bores, although they will be capped for emergency use. The realisation came as Toowoomba City Council was told the installation costs had blown out from $170,000 to $320,000 per bore. There was also a scorching from an unimpressed No case proponent Rosemary Morley.

Mrs Morley said: “Even if the Yes case had got up, people have to understand this is exactly where we were going to be because it (Water Futures) wasn’t going to be ready until February 2009.”

She was critical that council was not moving quickly enough and was outraged by threats of a Level 6 water restriction.

“Because we had the audacity to vote No – or a good percentage of us – this is our punishment, to threaten us. This is absurd,” She said.

Cr Thorley said the council had to wait to secure busy contractors and had been drilling since last year

The Nationals have not forgotten you with your water dilemma, there are plans afoot to develop more dams in the state.
http://www.qld.nationals.org.au/pdf/SEQ_water_policy.pdf

I did download similar plans of the labour party, but forgot to take note of the web page. You will find something under Queensland government, even more for Toowoomba other than drinking recycled water.

Also if you go to http://travestonswamp.info/forum/index.php you will find more information on the subject and fellow debaters.