"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.