Water

Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for water, recently announced a $13.4 million grant to revive the Macquarie Marshes and other important wetlands.

But it is unclear how the money will be spent. Reference has been made to ‘plans’, ‘models’, ‘competing interests’, ‘drought’, ‘market mechanisms to recover water’, and ‘noxious weeds’.

But more money, more plans, more water won’t necessarily save the marshes.

There has been much discussion at his blog about the relative impact of drought, levies, grazing and cotton since I first visited the marshes in October last year.*

I have come to the conclusion that the marsh environment would benefit most from the following actions which were detailed in a blog post entitled ‘Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes’:

1. Bulldoze the levy banks which are channeling water away from the two nature reserves and onto private land,

2. Protect key bird nesting sites from trampling by cattle.

3. Reduce the risk of overgrazing perhaps through some agreement about stocking rates and grazing regimes.

These actions would not be popular locally or easily understood in Sydney, but they would make a difference on the ground and they wouldn’t cost a lot of money.

Chris Hogendyk, an irrigator and chairman of Macquarie River Food and Fibre (MRFF), sent me a note following the $14.3 million announcement. He recommends that more land be purchased and converted to nature reserve:

“Both the Macquarie Marshes and Gwydir Wetlands are iconic wetlands valued internationally and by the local community.

… It is overly simplistic during a drought of record proportions to simply call for more water to solve the problems that face these important wetlands.

… 90% of the Marshes are in private hands which means 90% of any purchased water will be used for little more than grazing.

As a taxpayer I do not think that funding the purchase of water under these conditions will achieve a good environmental outcome.

In fact, more water delivered simply means more cattle and that in turn leads to further degradation of the environment.

MRFF has no problem in principle with the Government purchasing water from willing sellers to be used for the benefit of the environment, but we do object the Government purchasing water from one stakeholder group and delivering it to another stakeholder group free of charge.

MRFF proposes that a much better solution would be to purchase key land area within the marshes to protect this environment from grazing and hence get much better environmental value from the water there today.”

————————
* Blog posts on Macquarie Marsh issues:

1. Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000949.html

2. Marsh Graziers Don’t Pay for Water, 25 October 2005
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000958.html

3. More Water Won’t Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001282.html

4. But Reed Beds Need Water!, 12 April 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001309.html

5. Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001481.html

6. Banking in the Macquarie Marshes: More Photographs & A Map, 17 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001486.html

7. Fewer Trees Means More Water for Macquarie Marshes: Ian Mott, 23 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001497.html

The Queensland Government and the Gold Coast City Council have just signed-off on a deal to build a desalination plant – the first for Queensland.

It is expected to be completed by the end of November2008 and provide 125 megalitres a day. That’s a substantial 46 gigalitres a year.

This is perhaps the first significant water infrastructure project for south east Queensland to be approved since the Wivenhoe Dam which was completed in 1985?

I mention some of the history of water infrastructure development for this region in a piece I wrote for the Courier- Mail published yesterday. I also suggested the desalination plant be fast-tracked.

At the weekend 62 percent of Toowoomba residents voted against drinking treated sewage effluent. Just yesterday the Local Government Association of Queensland put out a press release suggesting Toowoomba is not typical of the rest of Queensland – or at least not typical of South East Queensland.

The association sponsored a survey which including 700 South East Queensland residents and 60 percent of them said they supported the use of treated sewage effluent to supplement the town water supply.

Across Queensland they found 57 percent of people in support of the concept with support strongest in males and lowest amongst those over 65 years.

These results correspond somewhat with a survey done by Graham Young and John Black last year as part of their regular gig on local ABC radio called ‘What the People Want’.

Nearly 500 people were survey for the ABC radio program.

Graham Young and John Black begin their report with comment that: “If there is one thing that Premier Peter Beattie could do that is less popular than making Brisbanites drink recycled sewage, it is to force them to add fluoride to their water”.

How about that! And I was given fluoride tablets as a child.

Anyway, Graham Young and John Black found that pretty much everyone agrees (96 percent) with recycling water for garden and industrial use, but only 48 percent agree when the recycling is for drinking water. 35 percent disapproved of recycling sewage as drinking water with a percent undecided or without an opinion or not wishing to answer.

The full report with lots and lots of table can be read by clicking here.

A few days ago they put up a new poll and emailed me. They are keen to know how you feel about this issue.

If you go to their questionnaire by clicking here or copying and pasting http://whatthepeoplewant.net/questionnaire-021-water-recycling.asp into your browser address bar, you can tell them.

Last weekend residents of Toowoomba — Australia’s largest inland regional city and a city running out of water — voted against a proposal whereby the city would draw 25 per cent of its water from recycled effluent. On the subject of water and recycling, Mercurius posted the following alert at the On Line Opinion Forum last night:

“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.”

Posted by Mercurius on Monday 31 July 2006 at On Line Opinion and republished here with permission.

“The Mayor of Toowoomba, Di Thorley, says the case for water recycling in Australia has been dealt a severe blow as a result of yesterday’s poll in the south-east Queensland city.

Around 60 per cent of residents have voted ‘no’ to a plan to draw 25 per cent of the city’s water from recycled effluent.”

… reports ABC Online.

Luke left the following comment earlier this morning at an earlier blog post on this issue:

“And there you have it – should put the sword through any other politicians trying to run the agenda for some time. A powerful option gone from the toolkit.”

Yet the front page of today’s The Sunday Mail includes the headline:

“Recycled Water Vote No, But Beattie sets date for new southeast referendum”.

Last Friday, before the vote was lost, Graham Young blogging at Ambit Gambit, suggested it was not a bad election issue for the Premier to run on.

It is interesting to ponder why Toowoomba voted against waste water recycling.

The ‘no campaign’ played on the ‘yuk’ factor and it is unclear to what extent the push was supported by local irrigators who have been using the city’s sewage to water their lucerne for about 60 years.

Perhaps the outcome could be seen as one group of resource users out-smarting a city council so they retain access to ‘cheap water’ so they can keep growing lucerne for their cows?

My understanding is that Goulburn will soon be drinking recycled sewage and that there will not be a referendum.

Economics and science would suggest that recycling waste water is the way to go for places like Toowoomba and Brisbane, but now it seems politics is getting in the way?

Interestingly I support the Australian Greens on this issue. Since 2004 it has been their policy to:

“Implement national policies that facilitate a decrease in per capita consumption of fresh water and expand opportunities for its re-use.”

………………………….

Update next day, 31st July

I expanded this blog piece into an article titled ‘Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba’ published this morning by On Line Opinion which you can read by clicking here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4742 .