Back to -
Teachers for Forests | State ; National; Interstate ; Overseas ; Regional News - Water | Newspaper Reports - Forests | News Reports Index |Otways ; | Wombat; | Gippsland; | East Gippsland and Goolengook ; | Central Uplands | Central Highlands; | Cobbobonnee; | Mallee; | Box Ironbark; | Bunyip State Forest; | Melbourne; | North East Highlands; | Murray Basin | South West ; | Strezlecki's | Wimmera | Port Phillip
Please scroll down for the articles
19/03/08 Queues for showers as water pong gets up town's nose Peter Ker, The Age Wimmera; SMarch 08
18/03/08 Key water pollution details withheld from public, Peter Ker, The Age; Central Highlands
13/03/08 Water policy direct from La La Land; Kenneth Davidson, The Age , Opinion ;
11/03/08 Protesters attack water pipeline site Peter Ker, The Age
11/03/08 Research rejects need for desalination plant Ben Doherty, The Age
03/03/08 Garrett slammed in dredging appeal Peter Gregory, The Age Port Phillip
03/03/08 Blue Wedges' last-gasp bid to halt dredging Peter Ker, The Age Port Phillip
Peter Ker, The Age
March 18, 2008
RESEARCH on pollution levels in Goulburn River water destined for Melbourne's drinking water has been withheld from a major public report into the controversial north-south pipeline.
The lack of disclosure on water quality in the Goulburn River is on top of admissions from Melbourne Water that the pipeline and desalination plant could affect the taste, odour and quality of Melbourne's drinking water after 2012.
The Age believes that workers from the pipeline contractors SKM and Melbourne Water checked levels of toxicants, heavy metals, biocides, bacterial contaminants and nutrients in the Goulburn River.
Their work was completed before the release of a project impact assessment — a major document assessing potential environmental and social impacts of the pipeline — but never included in it because it was considered a human-health rather than water-saving issue.
Melbourne Water did not deny the existence of the research, but defended the decision not to include it in the assessment. "The primary purpose of the PIA is to assess the potential impacts of the pipeline project itself," spokesman Gavan O'Neill said.
"Broader issues, such as any potential water quality risks in the Goulburn River catchment will be addressed as part of Melbourne Water's normal water supply operations."
The assessment warned that the pipeline should use water from the Goulburn River only at times when flows were high enough to ensure good quality.
"Under low-flow conditions the water in the Goulburn River may deteriorate because a greater proportion of the flow is derived from tributary streams that drain cleared agricultural land and some townships," the report said.
"Poor water quality constitutes a risk to Sugarloaf Reservoir and hence Melbourne's potable supply."
Melbourne Water rejected requests by The Age for the contaminant research to be made available, but the spokesman gave assurances that water quality for Melbourne customers after the pipeline was completed would be as high as it was now.
The lack of transparency was criticised by Opposition water spokeswoman Louise Asher, who urged authorities not to withhold information.
"Particularly where it is something to do with water quality, Melburnians have a right to know, and the research should be released," she said.
"What is the Government seeking to hide if basic information like this is kept secret?"
Work on the 70-kilometre pipeline is expected to start this year, and will result in 75 gigalitres of water entering Sugarloaf Reservoir annually by 2010.
■ A meeting of more than 60 prominent water officials from around Australia yesterday resolved that immigration laws should be creatively rearranged to help solve a skills crisis in the water sector, which was expected to be short by 8600 workers in the next decade.
The National Water Commission also pledged to spend $1.7 million on a graduate course in water planning.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au
Kenneth Davidson, The Age , Opinion
March 13, 2008
Spurious Government projections point to a privatisation agenda.
THE Brumby Government's water policy is looking less and less sustainable every day. There are a range of options that are all cheaper and environmentally more sustainable than the Government's decision to build a $3.1 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi, and the $1 billion north-south pipeline designed to divert water from the Goulburn reservoir to Melbourne Water.
The need to generate these additional supplies is based on water projections that are so flawed they border on the ludicrous, or the outright dishonest. The Government predicts a water supply crisis based on running a regression curve through the three drought years of 2004-2006, which shows the reservoirs that supply Melbourne drying up by 2010.
However, on the Government's own say so, the pipeline and the desalination plant will not begin delivering water until 2010 and 2011 respectively; but even if the plant is working by 2010 it wouldn't cover the shortfall projected by the Government.
Neil Rankin is the author of a recent and excellent supply/demand analysis of Melbourne's water until 2016. A science school teacher and member of the Kilcunda Your Water Your Say Action Group, Rankin writes that three years is far too short a period on which to base a long-term strategy, and would not be taken seriously by statisticians or scientific modellers. He might have added that when pap like the Government's predictions are used as the basis of policy to justify spending $4 billion dollars, one might have expected critical review by various government departments. But there hasn't been a word from the experts at Melbourne Water or the Department of Sustainability and Environment, from bureaucrats in the Department of Treasury and Finance, or from the Infrastructure Department. Clearly, the Victorian Government is in the middle of a dense forest in La La Land.
What this army of apologists for the financial engineers who have taken over the infrastructure priorities of this state — and are in the process of taking over the infrastructure priorities of the nation if the appointments to the national Infrastructure Board and the broadband inquiry are any guide — should have done is projected demand based on a 10-year rainfall regression that includes 2007 statistics.
It has taken a schoolteacher and a group of volunteers fighting to save their local environment to point out that the emperor of Spring Street and his retinue of advisers have no clothes on. In short, what this group has put together is a far more scientifically honest. and hence realistic, forecast, with 2007 levels of per capita consumption scaled for population increase and severe climate change. This shows that in 2016 the supply of water will be double the level of consumption.
Even if there was unrestricted consumption and a 25% increase in consumption above current levels, the excess of supply over consumption would still be about 60% in 2016.
The group that has put together these figures has been trying to see Water Minister Tim Holding for three weeks to discuss them. They want to see their analysis subjected to detailed examination and debate. They fear that if they send it to the minister it will be dismissed in a load of spin.
As readers of my recent columns discussing the alternatives to the desal plant and the north-south pipeline will appreciate, a lot of concerned people have been writing to Holding wanting to know why these alternatives have not been examined before the Government commits to what are arguably the worst alternatives available. Some of the ministerial replies have been passed on to me. They suggest the Government is determined to avoid sensible discussion of the alternatives.
The big question is: who prepared the shoddy projections on which the Government is basing its plans? It doesn't appear to be Melbourne Water. If Melbourne Water was involved then there is a complete disjuncture between the forecasts and Melbourne Water's operating and capital budget projections between 2008 and 2012.
The not-so-secret agenda of Labor governments across the country and the corporatised urban water authorities appears to be to find ways to increase the price of water as a prelude to setting up a water market leading to privatisation of water infrastructure.
The peak industry body is the Water Services Association of Australia. It is chaired by Dr Kerry Schott who has impeccable connections with Labor governments. She was appointed managing director of Sydney Water in 2006 from the position of deputy secretary of NSW Treasury. Before that she spent 15 years as an investment banker in the infrastructure area, including roles as managing director at Deutsche Bank and executive vice-president at Bankers Trust Australia.
If the Brumby Government really believed water was going to run out by 2010, rather than using the forecasts as an excuse to set up a couple of dodgy public-private partnerships that won't be ready in time, it would already have instituted a crash program in conservation, water harvesting, recycling, rolling out of rainwater tanks and maintaining draconian water restrictions to meet the crisis.
It isn't. Because it knows its projections don't hold water. It can't be long before voters know this too.
Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist. Email:
kdavidson@theage.com.au
Peter Ker, The Age
March 11, 2008
ANGER over the construction of a water pipeline from the Goulburn River to Melbourne has spilled over again, with protesters vandalising a work station over the long weekend.
Work has begun on the controversial north-south pipeline, with drilling going ahead even though the Government is still calling for public submissions to a project impact report.
Protesters on Sunday set upon the drilling stations on the banks of the Goulburn River at Killingworth, close to where the pipeline diversion will be installed in the river.
The protesters dismantled fencing and attached cables and shackles to two drilling rigs to prevent their being used. Trucks were covered in anti-pipeline posters.
Melbourne Water spokesman Gavan O'Neill said no workers were present when up to 40 people attacked the drilling station. "There will be no impact on the project schedule as a result of the protest," he said.
Jan Beer, a protester from anti-pipe group Plug the Pipe, said the protest took place on private land and police had not yet contacted the group.
"What we will have achieved is to just slow them up or stop them even for a little while," he said. "It was to make a statement about how we think the whole process is just a sham and how angry we are."
Plug the Pipe has previously threatened to blockade roads and properties along the proposed pipeline route.
Ben Doherty, The Age
March 11, 2008
VICTORIA'S $3.1 billion desalination plant could prove an energy-hungry white elephant, an analysis of Melbourne's water supply future has found.
Projections using State Government figures show that even with climate change reducing rainfall and an increasing population, Melbourne's dams could be overflowing by the middle of 2014 if desalination goes ahead. But Melburnians would still be paying extra for their water because of the cost of building and running the plant.
The Government has rejected the research, commissioned by protest group YourWaterYourSay, as flawed, saying it underestimates Melbourne's needs and overestimates the water available, but a leading water expert who has sat on several government water advisory boards has said it shows "there are questions which need to be asked".
Emeritus Professor Barry Hart, former director of the Water Studies Centre at Monash University, and independent chairman of the Yarra Co-ordinating Committee, said the research raised questions about the plant's viability.
"The information … is sufficiently robust for there to be concern over the long-term need for the desal plant," he said.
Neil Rankine from the protest group compiled Melbourne's Water: Supply and Demand Analysis using the Government's figures for catchment inflows, Melbourne's expected water use, new water sources and expected increases in environmental flows over the next eight years.
Based on Melbourne's water use for 2007, 369 gigalitres, Mr Rankine found new sources of water, such as the Tarago reconnection, Sugarloaf interconnector and Eastern Treatment Plant upgrade, would secure Melbourne's water supply.
Even allowing for a 25% increase in water use a desalination plant would still be superfluous, Mr Rankine said.
(The Government wants to cut per capita water use in Melbourne by 25% of the 1990s' average of 423 litres per person per day by 2015. Currently Melburnians use 303 litres a day.)
Mr Rankine said the Government was opting for desalination as a first-choice solution when it should be a last resort.
He factored in the CSIRO's worst case for climate change, which would see an 11% drop in the amount of water reaching the catchments, and the expected population increase in Melbourne of 1% a year.
"The Government's own numbers show that Victoria does not need this desalination plant. It is an energy-consuming, expensive waste. And it will increase massively the cost for Melbourne water users," he said.
Mr Rankine said his efforts to take his findings to the Premier's Department had been rebuffed over past weeks.
Professor Hart said his major concern was that a reliance on desalination could sideline other, more sustainable methods for obtaining water, such as stormwater harvesting, recycling of grey water and the recycling of additionally treated Eastern Treatment Plant water.
The Government has not ruled out a guaranteed usage clause in its desalination plant contract, which would mean taxpayers would have to pay for an agreed amount of water from the private operator every year, even if it wasn't needed.
"Security of water is one thing, but perhaps more important is whether this is a system that will work for our kids and their kids, and that it's not something that will become a white elephant or too expensive," Professor Hart said.
Water Minister Tim Holding said the plant was a key part of the state's $4.9 billion water infrastructure plan, and would be vital to securing supplies for Melbourne, Geelong, Western Port and South Gippsland.
The Government said several fundamental assumptions in the research were wrong — population growth had not been properly factored in and the assumed projected inflows were too high.
Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett wrongly deferred consideration of possible chemical and oil spills from maintenance dredging in Port Phillip Bay, a judge has been told.
Fiona McLeod, SC, for the environment group Blue Wedges, said Mr Garrett was legally bound to consider the issue when deciding last year whether dredging could take place.
The group has asked Justice Tony North to review the process used by Mr Garrett in making his decision.
Justice North said today it appeared from material before court that the likelihood of the spills occurring was about a million to one.
He said Ms McLeod had to show how Mr Garrett was legally bound to take into account the risk of the spills.
"I'm perfectly prepared to quash the minister's decision. I have absolutely no reticence ... my record demonstrates that," he said.
But Justice North said he needed to know the legal basis for the argument. He said it seemed Blue Wedges was fighting a "mountain" of previous legal decisions.
Ms McLeod said Justice North had identified the apparent likelihood of the spills occurring, but it was only one factor.
If the spills had a real or substantial risk of having an impact on the environment, Mr Garrett had to take account of it, she said.
She said maintenance dredging programs could continue until 2030, and were relevant matters for him to consider now, rather than defer because of uncertain science.
Earlier, Peter Hanks, SC, for the Commonwealth, and Greg Garde, QC, for the Port of Melbourne Corporation and State Government, said they were content for Blue Wedges to amend their challenge to Mr Garrett's decision.
"We don't oppose the amendments, other than to say we will defeat them," Mr Hanks told Justice North.
The hearing continues.
Peter Ker, The Age
March 3, 2008
AN 11TH-HOUR bid to stop channel deepening in Port Phillip Bay will return to the Federal Court today, with anti-dredging group Blue Wedges promising to bring its "strongest" arguments in support of its cause.
Blue Wedges has contested last year's decision by Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett to approve the project, but its case was criticised by Justice Tony North in the Federal Court last month, when he said he had "formed the preliminary view" that the Blue Wedges case was, "in most instances, very weak".
But Blue Wedges spokeswoman Jenny Warfe said she was confident of success.
"Our legal team advise us that we still have a reasonable chance of success and that's good enough for us because we are determined to protect the assets of the bay," she said.
Legal representatives for Blue Wedges are expected to argue that Mr Garrett:
■Erred by not consulting all relevant federal ministers, particularly the Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Climate Change.
■Failed to fully consider social impacts of the project, including its effect on recreational use of the bay.
■Failed to consider the impact of the project on matters such as protected wetlands and migratory species, including a failure to consider the impact of long-term maintenance dredging.
Earlier this month several industry groups — including the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Committee for Melbourne and the Maritime Union of Australia — attacked the legal system for "indulging" the Blue Wedges case.
Mr Garrett's office and the Port of Melbourne both declined to comment ahead of today's resumption of the case.