The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > To Poowoomba

To Poowoomba

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Snake

Many thanks. Most ineteresting post.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gadget,

Thanks for the link. The news item (if accurate) makes it clearer what Beattie is about, and I'll get to that. First, however, I would suggest that the recent Toowoomba referendum was not about the acceptability or otherwise of recycled sewage for domestic supply. It was about dereliction of duty, and policy hijacking by vocal minorities, at State and Federal government level that had had the cumulative effect of a failure to have ready in place a water storage and supply infrastructure sufficient to sustain this inland city throughout the sort of droughts that are quite foreseeable in Australia.

Hasbeen makes a very good point, if his research is accurate. It appears Toowoomba could have made its own provision for an expanded water supply, but was stopped. Why? Because, it would appear, the available streams and storage sites near Toowoomba from which water could be obtained without expensive pumping are required to assure Brisbane's water supply. Sylvia rightly points to where the real solution lies: coastal desalination for Brisbane supply augmentation. Sylvia makes a rare error, however, in suggesting that it should be Toowoomba residents that should meet the expense of the now short-term fix of pumping from Wivenhoe: that expense should be born at State and Federal government level in recognition of the fact that it has been their inaction and migration policies respectively that have denied Toowoomba the opportunity to provide for its own future in a sensible and inexpensive way.

Not finding the Toowoomba result to his liking, Beattie now wants a re-run in a larger electorate on the same question. Needless to say, most of those asked in this new referendum won't have to face the (immediate) prospect of pissing in their own water supply should there be a vote in favour of this form of recycling. If ever electors, other than those in Toowoomba, should sabotage a referendum, they should sabotage this one. Campaign for a 'No' vote in Toowoomba and an informal vote everywhere else. Show Beattie, Turnbull, and the environmentalist witch-doctors where they can get off!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 24 November 2006 8:06:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forest Gumpp

On my understanding, the next 'practical' place to build a dam that would supply Toowoomba is at Emu Creek. That's about 60 kms from Toowoombah. Since the natural flow of the water doesn't take it in the direction of Toowoomba, it would involve a pipeline and pumping, though less pumping than would be required from Wivenhoe. On the other hand, a dam has costs, so extra pumping might be cheaper. Emu Creek is in the catchment for Wivenhoe, so either way the water supplied to Toowoombah would have to be replaced by desalinated water for Brisbane.

There is going to be a cost. While I have no objection to Brisbane users having to pay the entire cost of desalination to liberate water for Toowoombah - fair shares - it still seems to me that the cost of getting the water from Emu Creek, or Wivenhoe, should be born by the people who are using it. They would have the same costs even if Brisbane didn't exist.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 24 November 2006 11:00:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvia,

That Toowoomba residents should bear the cost of what they were going to have to do in any event seems fair enough. I profess no detailed knowledge of the topography, and was working on the basis that Hasbeen was more or less correct in his claim of practical storage site availability and adequate catchment near Toowoomba. Given that such practical storage sites are within the Wivenhoe catchment, it would seem a pity to now make a duplicate outlay unless both storages could be easily filled under normal rainfall conditions. But Toowoomba has already been penalised by the delay imposed by its preclusion from development of expanded storage in a location convenient to it, and is due compensation for the results of this oppressive policy. So perhaps pumping from Wivenhoe should be subsidized.

A point that bears making in respect to desalination is that, notwithstanding the cost involved, the actual available supply of fresh water is increased. Re-use of water already in short supply does not necessarily solve that problem, especially if supply remains scarce or non-existent. Desalination increases reliability of supply, even if at increased cost. Increased reliability of supply makes other managment decisions easier, and may mean that fewer restrictions in regard to water use need be made.

In a wider context, there is probably no purpose more suited to the development and application of renewable energy sources than desalination and pumping of seawater. For those concerned with sustainability, this is where the opportunity is, and this is where the focus should be. It is interesting to hear the chorus of opposition to desalination from the environmentalist witch-doctors on the central coast of NSW, where like dereliction of duty at State government level with respect to water supply has occurred. Desalination, once achieved, and especially once achieved with sustainable energy sources, offers the prospect of water supply independence from the artificial restrictions of the environmentalist witch-doctor class. Let's hope there's more traditional Australian imperialistic developmental arrogance left in Queensland with which to sustain a witch-doctor free society! Be innovative. Desalinate now!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 24 November 2006 2:16:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest Gumpp

The thing is that towns do not really consume much water, in the sense that the water disappears from the system. Most of the water is used, and then returned via the sewerage pipework.

Consider this page from Sydney Water

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/OurSystemsandOperations/

It says that Sydney water provides 1.4 billion litres of fresh water per day, and collects 1.2 billion litres of waste water. These figures presumably relate to the time before restrictions were introduced, and both would be lower now. Anyway, the implication is that only about 15% of the water is lost in the process (and this includes Sydney Water's pipe leakages).

If the same figure applies to Toowoombah, and I cannot see why it wouldn't, then its catchment areas would only have to provide 15% of the water it uses if it recycled it. I imagine that the current catchment areas would be more than adequate, and would remain so for the forseeable future. There could even have some decent environmental flows. The same would be true of Sydney.

If one can overcome the 'yuck' factor, the only thing that should drive the decision is a financial one, albeit including any relevant environmental external costs.

I haven't been pushing for potable water recycling in coastal towns simply because I think doing so would be flogging a dead horse, and desalination is a viable alternative. In Toowoombah it's not.

Sylvia
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 24 November 2006 3:09:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvia,

That town waste water can be 85% recycled is not in dispute. That it may be possible to re-process sewage water to a standard safe for human consumption is also accepted. Your rider concerning the 'yuk' factor, and the point made by RObert in relation to trustworthiness of ongoing managment in controlling exposure to a now ever-present disease risk that is simply not there if sewage reprocessing for human consumption is not accepted, are the keys to the relevant argument here. The point is that the electors of Toowoomba have already made their decision with at least these two factors in mind, and that decision was to not accept the affront to sensibilities and exposure to risk involved.

Undoubtedly Toowoomba has been having to endure restrictions as to how much and upon what its available water supplies may be used. The ratepayers of Toowoomba may well consider it prudent to recycle that 85% of water usage that is not lost from the system for purposes OTHER THAN domestic use. There is undoubtedly an already foregone use for all that could be recovered. Whether it is recovered, however, should be left up to them as they should not be obliged to do this, if they think the cost excessive, as part of the price for an available replacement supply wrongly alienated from them in the first place.

To state that desalination is not a viable solution in Toowoomba is subtly misleading. Of course its not! There is, I think, no salt water anywhere near the place! But there is near Brisbane, and Brisbane is presently taking fresh water that was and is viably collectable near Toowoomba. Toowoomba should not be having to go without a drop of what it might normally have expected to prudently use, without recycling even entering the picture. Brisbane should not necessarily have to cut back either, as it does have the option of desalinating if it requires more water and is prepared to pay the price of getting it. The decision is in! Beattie should take on the environmentalist witch-doctors and desalinate.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 24 November 2006 5:12:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy