1. Secure water is needed before we're in too deep
May 19, 2005
Looming tougher restrictions won't solve the crisis in the long term, writes Charles Essery.
POLITICIANS and those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo have launched a
significant campaign to devalue the benefits and common sense of water recycling.
With many towns threatened by drought, Sydney facing permanent water restrictions and 90 per cent
of NSW drought-declared, the state's political leaders are stifling debate with misrepresentations,
such as the Energy and Utilities Minister, Frank Sartor, suggesting recycling is akin to asking people
to drink sewage. Why? And why is desalination - recycled seawater - seen as the solution?
Unlike most natural resources, water is totally recyclable. Most countries and cities rely on indirect
recycling, where the discharge of effluent from one city into a river is regularly used by other cities
downstream. It is natural, cost effective and accepted by billions of people around the world.
Towns on the tributaries that feed Warragamba Dam, for example Lithgow and Goulburn, discharge
treated effluent into the dam.
So what would be the water service a Sydneysider in 2030 would expect under a sustainable water
cycle?
First, water supply would be secure. Second, prices would reflect the true cost of water, sewage and
stormwater services (probably in the range of $2 to $3 per 1000 litres, as opposed to the present $1)
which would only bring us in line with European water prices, and is still significantly less than most
other essential services.
Third, water restrictions would be a thing of the past; people would use, and pay for what they use,
under a variable pricing regime.
Fourth, each house would have three water supplies: a locally harvested (single house or communal)
rainwater supply for toilets, laundry and hot water service, recycled supply for external and other non-
drinking uses and the traditional, but smaller capacity, drinking water supply.
Our water infrastructure (supply, sewer and stormwater) will have been refurbished using funds from
realistic pricing regimes, and future generations of Sydneysiders will not have to worry about water
security.
Melbourne has a target of 25 per cent recycled water by 2030, yet its supply is more secure than that
of Sydney. In other states, property developers are building townships which use up to 75 per cent
recycled effluent, stormwater and rainwater. Why is NSW, and in particular Sydney, so different?
Desalination appears to be the solution of preference for the Carr Government. Why? Quite simply,
the NSW Government appears averse to infrastructure investment. A desalination plant might appear
expensive - costing $2 billion or more - but this is likely to come from the private sector.
This may seem a lot (5 per cent of NSW's annual budget), but desalination does not require
spending on water cycle infrastructure such as dual reticulation systems, stormwater harvesting,
advanced effluent and stormwater treatment plants and localised rainwater harvesting. This
sustainable approach could require between $3 billion and $6 billion in investment in infrastructure.
Desalination may appear attractive but it is a short-sighted solution. A "sustainable water cycle
management" approach would ensure minimal harmful discharges to rivers, estuaries and oceans. It
NEWS | JOBS | REAL ESTATE | CARS | FINANCE | MOBILE | DATING | TRAVEL | WEATHER
network map | member centre
