The FOI refusal from Melbourne Water states ‘unnecessary public debate’ as a reason for not releasing the hidden recycling report. Clean Ocean Foundation will pursue the matter in court if this vital information is not released.
Click here to read Melbourne Water’s response letter
Click here to have a look at the comparison between Desalination and Recycling
Download GregHunt’s media release - Water report must be made public
19 August 2008
WATER REPORT MUST BE MADE PUBLIC
The Brumby Government has moved to ensure that ordinary Victorians are locked out of debate over the future of the State’s water supply.
A refusal to release documents requested under the Freedom of Information laws means the public may never get to see a report believed to contain details of a $1.86 billion potable water recycling option at the Eastern Treatment Plant.
The Freedom of Information request was made by the Clean Ocean Foundation, which sought the release of a State Government-commissioned report entitled Water Smart Water Supply – Demand Strategy for Melbourne (Water Substitution) April 2006.
The request was rejected by Melbourne Water on the grounds that it could lead to “unnecessary debateâ€.
The Clean Ocean Foundation believes the report contains definitive figures that show Victoria’s water supply could be boosted at less than half the cost of desalination and with far less environmental impact.
Victorian Premier John Brumby has so far refused to explain why he chose the most costly and environmentally-destructive method of securing the State’s water supply when other options were available.
In the interests of openness and accountability, this report must be made public. If there are better options for supplementing our water supply, the public has a right to know about them.
Labor won the last State election on a policy of ‘no desalination plant’, saying desalination was too dependent on energy and would have negative impacts on climate change abatement.
In light of this, Victorians have a right to know the reasons why Mr Brumby has changed his mind.
Media enquiries: Tina McGuffie on 5979 3188 or 0417 361 732
Download the Bass Coast Shire Council’s media release
19 June 2008
FIRM STAND AGAINST DESAL
Bass Coast Shire Council has voted to formally oppose the State Government’s proposed desalination plant.
On the first anniversary of the announcement of plans to build a plant near Wonthaggi, Council passed a motion calling on the State Government to abandon the decision to construct a plant. The motion also asked for a comprehensive, open and transparent inquiry into options for Victoria’s water supply.
Acting Chief Executive Officer, Danny Luna, said that to date, the Government had never explained why desalination has to play such a large part in the State’s water policy. “Council has consistently requested more information, better community consultation and open dialogue with the State Government,†said Mr Luna. “The motion is an indication of Council’s frustration at the way the State Government has handled the desalination project.â€
“A number of recent developments have brought this to a head.â€
Mr Luna said there was a lot of anxiety and concern about the State and Federal Governments decision to pursue the Your Water Your Say action group for the costs of the Federal Court case.
“This case has implications well beyond Bass Coast and the proposed desalination project,†said Mr Luna.
“It seems unjust that in order to question a government decision, one of the few direct options open to a small community group is a legal process that could see them potentially bear the almost unlimited costs of a government legal defence team.â€
The announcement of the proposed electricity transmission lines for the desalination plant has also angered many local landowners.
“The Government continues to show a lack of respect for the local community,†said Mr Luna.
“The overhead transmission lines will cut through some of Victoria’s best farm land.â€
“This will have a significant environmental and visual impact. In some cases it would have a direct impact on the landowners’ ability to continue to farm their property.â€
Mr Luna said parts of the potential route are protected by a Significant Landscape Overlay in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme.
“The Council and community are extremely concerned that the State Government will override our local planning policies, as happened with the proposed location of the desalination plant,†said Mr Luna.
“Council has consistently asked the State Government to justify their decisions and to engage in an open dialogue with our community.
“To date, that has not been forthcoming, despite our best efforts to actively engage in this process,†Mr Luna concluded.
END
Download the Bass Coast Shire Council’s media release
click here to download Greg Hunt’s Media Release
26 May 2008
LABOR’S RUTHLESS ATTEMPT TO CRUSH COMMUNITY RESISTANCE TO THE DESALINATION PLANT
Flinders’ MP Greg Hunt has condemned the State and Federal Governments for their determination to pursue Your Water Your Say for costs after an unsuccessful legal challenge to the desalination plant.
Mr Hunt said the application for costs to be awarded against the community group betrayed an unwarranted level of vindictiveness on the part of the State and Federal Labor Governments.
“The Your Water Your Say group is made up of community members whose only crime is to care deeply about the environment and to want to protect the stunning Kilcunda coastline,†Mr Hunt said.
“For the two Labor Governments to pursue these people for costs, with the full knowledge that this would inevitably bankrupt the group, reveals a ruthless determination to silence dissent.
“Bankrupting Your Water Your Say will effectively remove the community’s ability to have a say on this issue and give the State Government a free rein to do as it pleases, regardless of what local residents want. How will this serve the interests of democracy?
“Perhaps Mr Brumby’s desire to silence the community stems from his inability to justify his decision to build a desalination plant.
“He has never publicly stated why he chose the most expensive and environmentally-destructive method of augmenting Melbourne’s water supply instead of cleaning up Gunnamatta and recycling our waste water for industry and agriculture.
“As for Mr Garrett, this move is merely the latest in a string of ill-considered decisions in which the environment will be the ultimate loser.â€
Media contact: Tina McGuffie on 03 5979 3188 or 0417 361 732
Please read this article by Mary Crooks and Wayne Chamley of Watermark Australia
Government’s water projects need independent scrutiny
It is a truism that the health of a democracy is measured by the degree of transparency attached to government decision-making. A key institution for ensuring some level of transparency is the Office of the Auditor General.
The Bass Council recently stopped negotiations with the State Government because it had been impossible to glean any substantive detail from the Government regarding the proposed $3.9 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi. Likewise, it is impossible to verify the expected water savings claimed by the Government in relation to the Food Bowl modernization project. Yet, such verification is crucial to determining whether there can be the amount of water savings available for piping to the Sugarloaf Reservoir via the proposed North-South pipeline.
These three water projects represent massive amounts of public expenditure on major new infrastructure. At the present time there is insufficient information in the public domain to allow the people of Victoria to be confident of getting value for their tax dollars. Only the Auditor-General can provide an independent and authoritative answer.
This independent scrutiny should start with the documentation held by government, Melbourne Water Corporation and Murray-Goulburn Water relating to the so-called Food Bowl Modernisation Project and the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project. An Auditor-General’s report will at least show whether each of these projects represent cost-effective expenditure of public monies. Likewise, the basis of any future private/public partnership for the desalination plant needs to be scrutinized and reported on by the Auditor-General.
The only public information, from government websites and communication materials, is summary information on proposed expenditure, the expected water yields and the uses to which this saved water is to be put. For example, we are told that the Food Bowl project will be carried out in two stages. Stage One is to cost $1billion, producing 225 billion litres (GL) of saved water by raising the overall efficiency of the irrigation system from 70 to 77%. This water-saving opportunity works out at $4,444 to gain each million litres (ML). Stage Two is uncosted, although we are told it will save a further 225 GL, by raising efficiency to 85%. The $1 billion extracted by Premier Brumby at the most recent meeting of COAG represents part of the costs for Stage Two.
This limited information suggests that someone has determined (or is it simply being assumed?) that there is a linear relationship between incremental increases in efficiency and the volume of water to be gained. In this regard, modeling studies carried out in 2002 considered all of the irrigation systems in the Murray-Darling Basin. They found that for some, this relationship may be linear. For others however, it may be either reciprocal (most water gained at the start and then declines with further expenditure) or exponential (smaller volumes are gained at the start and these increase with increasing expenditure).
We need to know the real situation here because the implications are profound. For instance, if the relationship between efficiency and water to be saved is exponential then there is an immediate problem. Starting from first principles, it can be calculated that the water saving from Stage One might not exceed 120 GL.
This potential discrepancy is critical, because the Government is using the figure of 225 GL to justify sending 75GL to Melbourne via a new pipeline that will cost $750 million. The infrastructure costs to save and then transfer this water to Melbourne work out at $14,440 per ML (million litres). If the water savings in Stage One turn out to be only 120 GL, the infrastructure costs rise to $18,333 per ML. This suggests that 65% of Stage One expenditure will be incurred just to save the 75 GL for Melbourne, with little for irrigators and the environment.
If however, the relationship between efficiency and water to be saved is reciprocal, then while 225 GL may be saved from Stage One, the same volume of water will not be saved from Stage Two. The Victorian government has stated that this water will be shared between irrigators and the environment and now the Commonwealth government appears to have made a down-payment for a 100 GL environmental portion. Again, whether this amount of water can be saved is open to serious question.
There is a second aspect of the Food Bowl Project that also needs to be scrutinised. As the upgrade is carried out, there will no doubt be claims of water savings being made. Are these to be independently verified? This is particularly important in a climate change scenario for Victoria which predicts declining inflows into river systems. Can we really get this water after all this expenditure? What independent monitoring should be put in place so that the Victorian public can feel reassured that their money was well-spent?
It makes sense to upgrade irrigation infrastructure to save water. However, with a possible four-fold range in the cost of saving water and then using or transferring this water, Victoria’s taxpayers are entitled to ask what value will they be getting for their money? On face value, it would appear that the greatest benefit will be achieved if all saved water is made available to irrigators and to reverse environmental degradation. At least there are tangible gains when water is used for these purposes. Transferring water to Melbourne on the other hand, simply means that more precious water is going to be converted into wastewater. Major questions also surround the proposed desalination plant and these too can only be properly answered by independent investigation and scrutiny from the Auditor-General.
Wayne Chamley and Mary Crooks
Co-authors of Our Water Mark – Australians
Making a Difference in Water Reform
1/388 Bourke Street
Melbourne
9642 0422
Download Greg Hunt’s Media Release as a pdf
10 April 2008
AUDITOR-GENERAL CONDEMNS DESALINATION PLANT PLANNING
The Victorian Auditor-General has confirmed what the Bass Coast community has suspected all along – that plans for the desalination plant were developed with minimal consultation as a knee-jerk reaction to the drought.
Of even more concern, the Auditor-General’s report also reveals that the Victorian Government deliberately used a lower estimate of the proposed cost of the desalination plant when a more accurate, higher cost estimate, was available.
The damning report, entitled Planning for Water Infrastructure in Victoria, reveals that the Victorian Government developed its water plan in less than six months as a hasty response to the worsening drought.
As a result, its planning process was below standard, stakeholder consultation was almost non-existent and “inadequate levels of rigour†were applied to estimating costs, benefits and risks of the project.
This report reveals the State’s $4.9 billion Our Water Our Future plan to be a hastily-cobbled together, knee-jerk response to a year of record low inflows to our water storage that deliberately misleads the community about the true cost of desalination.
Given the Victorian Government’s appalling track record on managing major projects, the Victorian community can expect huge cost blow-outs and vastly more expensive water if the desalination plant goes ahead.
It should also be noted that the lack of consultation in formulating the desalination plant plan has continued to the present day. The frustration felt by the Bass Coast Shire over this has lead to its withdrawal from all formal discussion with the State on this matter.
This lunacy must stop now. The Victorian Government should ditch the costly, energy-guzzling desalination plant while it still can and pursue its pre-election promise of large scale recycling of our waste water. This would clean up our coasts and provide recycled water for industry and agriculture.
Media contact: Tina McGuffie 0417 361 732 or 03 5979 3188
Download Greg Hunt’s Media Release as a pdf
