Comments on Prof Patrick Troy's full page article Canberra Times
Monday 31 March 2008
I refer to the 60 paragraphs which make up the article.
Para 1 The water supply system HAS met demand for many decades
and with dam levels above 45% at the end of summer the situation is not
exactly wrist-slashingly critical.
I am yet to find evidence re catchment yields and catchment vegetation
management. Improving catchment yields by managing vegetation is
by far the cheapest way to augment supplies. Surely any prudent water
manager would have been doing exactly this from 2001.
Agree there is an urgent need to re-examine Canberra's water services
systems but mainly because of wrong directions ACTEW is taking
towards WPP and at the same time sidelining the Tennent Dam option and
taking years to plan enhancing the Cotter.
2
3 I say the traditional "predict and provide"
model is fine if it is done well, but Govt has NOT done this
efficiently. The last dam at Googong was built in 1977,
over 30 years ago, what was the ACT population and water demand at that
time. Has anybody got documents showing the planning
assumptions at the time the Googong Dam was built ?
4 I am puzzled as to what are "socio-cultural drivers
of demand" ?
5 If ACTEW keeps ignoring readily available dam water,
wasting dam water on excess env flows and building hyper-expensive WPP,
then we have not seen expensive water yet.
6 It has exposed poor planning and is inducing an
irrational response by most Australian Govts.
7
8
9 Rain is naturally highly variable but with proper
planning this is no problem, dams have been hugely successful for
centuries in storing water. Canberra rain post 2001 has simply
returned to pre 1945 levels, see graphic of Uriarra composite rainfall history 1887-2007
10 As I say in 9, rain trends since 2001 have only returned
to pre 1945 levels in a cyclic way. There is no evidence of a
decline from historic levels to some "all time low", as the media lead
us to believe by years of peddling "worst drought ever"
claims. Professor Troy correctly puts his finger on ACT
population / demand increases and we must remember here that Googong
Dam was planned over 30 years ago. It was built in 1977 and I am
searching for the planning assumptions current at the time it was
built. So I am saying, in contrast to Professor Troy, that we are
NOT in a climate crisis but we ARE in a crisis of ineffective
planning. ACT Govt water managers have lived off the fat of
the Googong Dam for years and have neglected to augment the system in
line with population and demand. Even now, over half a decade into this
water "crisis", cost effective dam sources are being ignored, eg
Tennent and
enlarged Cotter, in favour of a hyper-expensive, politically
fashionable WPP which will not produce much water anyway .
11 Consideration of health and primary hygiene
aspects are still there.
12
13 No Professor, it is because most Australian do not want
to live jammed up against neighbours in multi-dwelling hi-rise blocks.
14 Not a special factor at all, other Australian cities are
also dominated by independent houses on their own garden blocks.
Canberra is just a bit more sprawled out.
15
16 We should still sensibly increase supply because it
would take a long time to "double plumb" homes to facilitate grey-water
resuse, if indeed that was good policy.
17 Media hysteria about drought has done that to excess for
over 5 years now.
18 Peddling CSIRO doomster climate model fairy-stories
increasingly to State Govts and in the media is not a basis for sound
planning.
19 Home owners installing rainwater tanks and grey water
tanks will mostly find it is very expensive compared to current ACTEW
water prices. A report by Marsden Jacob Associates
commissioned by the National Water Commission - April
2007 The cost-effectiveness of rainwater tanks
in urban Australia (PDF 498KB) (look for download under
Waterlines) shows that with Canberra rainfall, rainwater tanks are a
very very expensive option. More costly than seawater
desalination. People thinking about installing rainwater tanks
should check the costs and benefits very carefully.
On the issue of introducing the mass recycling of grey water into
households, I am yet to find a woman who does not object to grey water
smells and ditto re agreeing for the use of grey water to flush her
toilet. I think many home owners would not be able to
sustain safe management of grey water.
20 I do not understand how there can be, "significant
savings in dwellings' plumbing"
21 If useful new technologies are available lets use them.
22
23 It has been the backbone of HUGE improvements in public
health over centuries.
24 Dual flush toilets were introduced in Victoria by John
Cain circa 1990. So they are nothing new.
25
26 Phew, so we can shower in clean water.
27 Agree with price for essential water at a base level.
28 No indication of what these prices will be. The
final arbiters of all this will be water consumers who are voters and
as they realize they have been fed a load of exaggerations re climate
change, it will be up to them as to who they vote for.
29 There is a serious issue here that maybe Professor
Troy has not given sufficient thought to. German experience
is that changes to the volume
and make up of sewage can cause problems in transport and treatment
that are expensive to rectify. Population decreases in
parts of Germany, particularly post 1990 have lead to very expensive re-engineering of sewerage
systems.
30 Perhaps it would be cheaper for Govt to collect some of
the stormwater runoff and treat for the water supply system rather than
building the WPP. If Perth is a guide, stormwater in pipes could
total half of Canberra's water consumption.
31
32 Really detailed stuff but as I said in 19, I am yet to
find a woman who does not object to grey water smells and
ditto re agreeing for the use of grey water to flush her toilet.
33 I say all at great expense, far better to sensibly
augment supply, along with discouraging waste.
34
35 See 29, Reducing the water driving sewage
flow, could well cause
engineering problems, if German experience is any guide.
36 Ditto 35 and 29.
37 Professor Troy may have a good point here, it would need
engineering assessment. Could stormwater be collected in
Scrivener Dam overflows ? See 30 above.
38 Lots of different approaches.
39 Need engineering costing and assess.
40 It sounds to me as though the more complex
citywide system could be more prone to breakdowns. I also
think the more complex double plumbing being prescribed for households
would leave them exposed to breakdowns and failures of the expensive
and complex systems.
41
42 All at huge expense, who will pay for retro-fitting ?
43 Sounds like more Govt propaganda will be required.
44 So we now have two parallel sewerage systems, who will
pay for this massive duplication of engineering works across this
sprawling city ? Pie in the sky I think.
45
46 People are right to be concerned. Two centuries of
massively successful improvements in public health are based on
SEPARATING sewage from potable water supply. Why overturn this
principle for no good reason ?
47 Correct
48 Exactly
49 OK But this is EXACTLY the path ACTEW are on by
building a demonstration WPP. Have no fear, there will be no
stopping the full sized WPP unless Canberrans make their voices
heard loud.
50 For sure, mucho drafting of new regulations.
51
52
53
54 I am puzzled that "predict and provide" should be
referred to in a pejorative sense. I am sure many people would
say that Govt and ACTEW have not "predicted and provided" well
enough.
55 Dams and so called "big engineering" solutions have
worked
marvellously well for centuries, no need yet for such expensive and
radical changes as Professor Troy is proposing.
56 Correct.
57 Introducing greywater use in homes and businesses
will take much
careful planning and education. Most householders could not
manage
greywater safely.
58 ACTEW prices would have to be racked up enormously to
force
installation of household rainwater tanks. Far better and cheaper
for
consumers to pay ACTEW to enhance or build another dam to ensure water
supply at a reasonable cost.
59 Better be careful not to reduce sewage flows too much or
the system might not work as planned, see 29 and 35.
60 A step back 200 years would be hugely expensive and
carry the risk of negative health impacts.