Toowoomba, water recycleing [Archive]

Wood Butcher

29th July 2006, 09:17 PM

Yeah,most booths had someone handing out water. The reason I think the no vote will win, is that this decision locks us into recycling, which wouldn't come online till 2013 ( I think?). What we need is water now. There are other options available in the short term that apparently are viable but the council have ignored them.

It was interesting seeing some of the info that independant no campaigners published only in the last few weeks. The reason it was left till last is unlike the council who set aside $485,000 for the yes promotion, the no argument (who the council gave only $5000, which they gave back in protest) and depending on public donations for funding.

Wood Butcher

29th July 2006, 09:20 PM

Not trying to funny but I think the mayor is right, unless there is a big dam building scheme, owhh and of course it rains a lot more.

I can see most places around Oz doing this in the near future.

Al :)
I think it will be the norm soon. Peter Beattie said SE QLD could be doing it within 3 years but Toowoomba would have to wait till 2013 - Why??:confused:

ozwinner

29th July 2006, 09:27 PM

but Toowoomba would have to wait till 2013 - Why??:confused:

'cause its a country town, all country towns come last on the list yah know that.

Al :)

bitingmidge

29th July 2006, 09:37 PM

Peter Beattie also said whatever Toowoomba voted would determine the future for Queensland.

The whole thing is a big stupid beatup. Yes, I know it is distasteful (:rolleyes: ), but as Oz has already pointed out, all the water we drink is recycled currently.

Show me a catchment in Australia that doesn't run through somewhere an animal hasn't pooed, or a fish or bird hasn't shat in.

It's just a case of recovering less water from the mix.

I can never understand why anyone bothers getting an education, when decisions on which they have a good deal of expertise are left to those who haven't read any more than a couple of political brochures, or listen to talkback radio, yet that is how all planning is done in this country.

I think I'll move to Hutt River Provence where I can surely live like a King!

Cheers,

P

echnidna

29th July 2006, 09:41 PM

If Toowoomba votes no its odds on that the water price will go up to reduce usage

Sir Stinkalot

29th July 2006, 09:52 PM

As far as I see it one town takes the water from the stream, treats it, drinks it, disposes of it, treats it, and then puts it back into the stream ...... the next town follows the same procedure as the first.

The water isn't being treated at the wastewater treatment plant and then being re-pumped directly into the water supply, it is being put back into the reservoir and treated again before drinking.

The places that I have visited overseas do not recommend the drinking of the water from the tap ...... this reused water in Australia will reach a standard higher than many other countries.

Its a great fear campaign to say that you are drinking pee ...... unfortunately there are too many who are quick to jump on a bandwagon without doing a little research.

There was an excellent series on SBS a few years ago - Water the drop of life ..... this was well worth a viewing if you can get hold of it, certainly an eye opener. The companion book however was a let down compared to the tv but still a good read.

If I had the option of drinking recycled water I would say yes.

Lignum

29th July 2006, 10:07 PM

Well Beattie thinks the sun shines out of his bum so why shouldnt we drink water from his.........:eek:

Wood Butcher

29th July 2006, 10:43 PM

Now, now Lignum (It is true though isn't it!)

As I said it probably is the way of the future, but it won't solve the water shortage in the mean time. At this rate we will run out of water long time before the sytem is online!

Rossluck

29th July 2006, 10:49 PM

What a bummer. Toowoomba's a great place, but the conservative element is still strong there. It's be the last place I'd try to get a referendum through with a Labor Government in power. Especially with a strong, straight talking, progressive woman in Di Thorley up against Clive Berghoffer, an ultra conservative multi-millionaire who still has the first dollar he earned.

But Beattie's a smart politician, so this may well be part of a larger plan. Watch this space ....

RufflyRustic

29th July 2006, 10:53 PM

...... Hutt River Provence where I can surely live like a King!

Cheers,

P

If that's the Hutt River Valley in NZ where I was born, (it's the only Hutt River I know) then Yes Midge, you would indeed live like a King. :)

Cheers
Wendy

Andy Mac

29th July 2006, 11:02 PM

Unfortunately the No vote has prevailed. A lot of scare-mongering , but I didn't really expect otherwise...Toowoomba is indeed a conservative town. We didn't get a chance to vote on the issue, as we're in the next shire, BUT we still rely on Toowoomba's water supply, as does most of Crows Nest (Highfields, Cabarlah, Hampton etc):confused:. Whatever decision they make, we live with, so I'm pretty annoyed about it.
I think the best way forward is to bring on line a range of supply options, and look at the recycling one again later. I'm sure it will be OK'd if it goes elsewhere instead of the drinking tap, like gardens or industry.

Cheers,

Wood Butcher

29th July 2006, 11:03 PM

Not quite Wendy. Have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutt_River_Province

RufflyRustic

29th July 2006, 11:07 PM

Water is water and we need it to live. The way things are at present, it doesn't matter what decision is implemented, there is still going to be a cost to everyone. Yes, some methods are very much more expensive than others, eg dams - cost of building plus cost to the people who have to move; grey water for toilet & maybe garden use - the cost of an additional set of plumbing; etc etc etc, but some don't cost as much and are just as good as that to which we have become accustomed.

The end result is that I really doubt anyone would have been able to see 100% clearly into the future that we would run out of water, suffer a a major drought, have so many people move to SE QLD.....

Water is water, but please Lord let it rain.

Wendy

RufflyRustic

29th July 2006, 11:09 PM

Not quite Wendy. Have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutt_River_Province

groan...:cool:

I still prefer my own Hutt River Province in NZ though;)

thanks
Wendy

Rocker

30th July 2006, 07:18 AM

I cannot understand why this was put to a referendum. The council should have just gone ahead and done it. I cannot see why they should have to implement a stupid decision made by an ignorant populace on the basis of a scare campaign. Now Toowoomba and Queensland will be the laughing stock of Australia. Hopefully Beattie will have the sense to step in and overturn it.

Rocker

Pat

30th July 2006, 07:49 AM

You mean to say that you Queenslanders were not derided before this:D One name says it all . . . JOE:D :D :D :D

Ducking into my flame proof bunker, Now ;)

Buzzer

30th July 2006, 09:25 AM

The way I see it (all be it from 450km away), is the population is increasing, but no increased water storage, ie, dams.

There is politics involved that I don't understand. If Labour Gov't build dams they will lose the green vote......... and power.

That's my 2 bob's worth.

Cheers.

Rossluck

30th July 2006, 09:27 AM

You mean to say that you Queenslanders were not derided before this:D One name says it all . . . JOE:D :D :D :D

Ducking into my flame proof bunker, Now ;)

Come on Pat, give us a go. We're still trying to recover some sort of reputation after Joh and Pauline. It's a big ask :D .

Well put Rocker. ;)

silkwood

30th July 2006, 10:14 AM

'cause its a country town, all country towns come last on the list yah know that.

Al :)

Not True!! Adelaide's been drinking NSW waste water for years!

Cheers

ozwinner

30th July 2006, 10:24 AM

Not True!! Adelaide's been drinking NSW waste water for years!

Cheers

True.
In fact if you go to any town along the Murray they all drink recycled water.
It tastes like crap, but if you lived there you would have a filter into your house wouldnt you.

Al :)

Wood Butcher

30th July 2006, 10:42 AM

In that case we do come first here as Toowoomba is at the head of the Murray-Darling catchment basin:p.

For the record I think that recycling water in going to be a neccesity very soon. The problem I have is that it won't answer the immediate water concerns for Toowoomba and all of the other townships that use the same water supplies. My ideal situation would be to start planning the infrastructure for recycling, while in the mean time start getting water from elsewhere to tide us over. It is the mean time that the council seems to have forgotten about.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. I imagine Mayor Thorley will come on tv saying how stupid all of the people that voted no are and we are doomed for eternity. But the crucial question is what the council are going to do next:confused:

silkwood

30th July 2006, 10:50 AM

I'm a little confused Rowan. By your earlier comments I was presuming you were against a Yes vote, but here you say it's inevitable, we should start planning for it now but look to other options for the immediate future(?).

Wouldn't it make sense, then to vote Yes and then lobby for other options (which would be inevitably addresses, if it is true that recycling would be too late)? Not disagreeing, just asking for clarification. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

Cheers,

Wood Butcher

30th July 2006, 11:08 AM

I'm not against water recycling. A yes vote locks Toowoomba into recycling which as I stated earlier wouldn't come online for another 5 years at least. I think water recycling is a long term solution but we need short term solutions which do exist but it seems the council isn't considering them.

Water recycling is not the be all and end all solution. It really only supplements the natural catchment of rain. It amazes me that there are so many people whinging about water yet they won't put in a rain water tank. Fair enough that the council is making it mandatory on all new houses but as SWMBO suggested this morning why not make it that whenever a house is sold a rainwater tank must be installed within say 6 months (a similar thing at the moment is safety switches must be installed after a house is sold in QLD).

Another option is that the council could put a small weir across the west creek and catch some of the stormwater run off. I live opposite one of the stormwater runoff easements in town and it is staggering the amount of water that runs through there after ANY rain. But then you have the farmers up in arms cause thats their water. There is even some irrigators threatening to take council to court if the recycling project went ahead because the effluent pumped that would otherwise be pumped into west creek is the irrigation water which they would no longer have.

SO (sorry for the long winded reply) I think recycling waste water is inevitable whether you like it or not. The technology is there, one of my chemical engineering lecturers has done some research and they can purify partiulate matter out to one part per billion. Thats something the size of a pin point in one cubic metre of water, so thats pretty pure water!! (and they were going to dump into back into the dirty dam water??) For me it is simply that we just need water now!

bitingmidge

30th July 2006, 11:30 AM

What would have made sense, would have been politicians doing the job they were elected to do.

That is, making decisions based on the recommendations of experts employed by their government/council.

If the general population was able to rule by consensus, there'd be no need to have political representation.

Now when the going gets a bit tricky, the elected representatives buckle.

From the population that gave you "daylight saving fades my curtains", we now have water treatment policy for a nation!

Cheers,

P
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Wood Butcher

30th July 2006, 12:50 PM

Just found out that apparently the council was just going to do it but the government said that if it goes to referendum and you get a yes vote we will subsidise $23mil (I think) towards the project.

So it still may happen but with possibly no govt funding??

journeyman Mick

30th July 2006, 01:29 PM

Rowan,
just wondering what the short term solutions would be? Personally I think everyone should be made to live in a house without town water for 6 months as a water wise education exercise. I'm sure they'd go back to suburbia and use a lot less.:rolleyes: . Hmm I might just have to post a poll (my first) to see how much water people use.

Mick

Bob Willson

30th July 2006, 01:58 PM

This current water shortage is just a VERY temporary thing. We just haven't had any decent cyclones in the area for a while now. If we had, then we wouldn't even be having this thread.
Cairns had a big storm recently - do they have a water problem?
Most of our present problem is about water management and lack of infrastructure to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again.

If we had built the dams when it was deemed necessary by the town planners whose job it is to know these things then we would now have plenty of water. Instead of this, we listen to the greenies and every ratbag group that can get up and make a noise and then bow to the group that makes the most noise.

Redcliffe City Council was looking at building a water desalination plant. They didn't because it would have doubled the cost of water. So what? I would rather pay more for water than have to rely on the dubious and temporary solution of recycling our used toilet water.

Or how about we just cover over our dams to stop so much evaporation? That alone would save more than we would ever recover from recycling.

Build dams NOW. LISTEN to the town planners. THINK - don't just react and follow the herd.

Responses please? :p:)

felixe

30th July 2006, 02:12 PM

I agree with Bob and Mick. Growing up in Tassie - we never had (or probably will have) a water shortage. When I was younger I lived in the Huon and we were on tank water, when it got dry in summer we pumped from the creek, having to boil water for drinking. I now live in Brissie, and am amazed by the amount of water my surrounding locals use. When I arrived in Brissie, I could not believe that tanks were not used here considering the bloody rainfall in summer, (we get the local waterboard letter praising us for using "below average" for our area) We are now searching for a rainwater tank to install!
We have (had) plenty of dams for power generation and water storage, waterworks reserve out of Hobart is a major catchment from Mt Wellington, it is nestled in between the upmarket suburbs of South Hbt and Sandy Bay, is a popular recreational place for locals, as is Risdon brook Dam, both of these were built with no real resistance and help sustain the local population.
It is now interesting to note that our Mayor has come out and said we are going to have to recycle water as there is no solution, and at the same time the Premier says no recycling without a referendum. From the noise the Mayor is making it looks like referendum or not - we will be getting some form of water recycling?

bitingmidge

30th July 2006, 02:41 PM

LISTEN to the town planners.
Formal Town planning should be abandoned completely; the market has been the most successful dictator of planning in mankind's history.

Town Planning per se has really only had a century or so (half that in this country) to completely stuff up whatever it is that it is trying to achieve. If there is a viable development solution, then the infrastructure will be provided to service that solution. If there's no viable infrastructure, there can't be viable development. Ironically, it's the planning that throw's that equation out of whack!

Strategic Planning, now that's a different kettle of fish. Setting broad infrastructure plans based on reasonalbe forecasts of capacity is the only responsible objective, and the planning part has been undertaken.

It's just that consensus keeps getting in the way of implimentation.

Thanks to our gutless elected representatives, there is simply no longer any need to educate anyone, no need for specialised engineers, planners, or experts of any kind. Whenever those consultants propose anything, consensus rules. I guess that fixes any education crisis though!

People who watch Big Brother, Lost, and Celebrities on Ice, get to say what they think (as if they know what thinking actually is) and usually what they think isn't at all related to:
a) the problem in hand
b) a solution to the problem

When I arrived in Brissie, I could not believe that tanks were not used here Until a few years ago, tanks were illegal in Brisbane, as they were deemed to carry significant health risks from two fronts. Firstly they contributed significantly to mosquito breeding as not everyone keeps their tanks perfectly insect sealed, and the instance of Ross River Fever is seriously on the rise.

Secondly, there was very real evidence of heavy metals and other polutants reaching concentrated levels from roofwater runoff (particularly lead - now reduced due to it's absence from fuel).

The current encouragement of tank installation is a political knee jerk reaction, which hasn't sought to educate the proud new tank-owers that their water isn't actually clean and from the sky, it's wash-down from their roofs!

I will be very interested to see what knee jerk reaction happens when someone realises that not all tank water is pure and clean, and the first bouts of kids with chronic fatigue or bad teeth or whatever start to appear.

The provision of tank water is a noble objective, but then so is the maintenance of public health in a large urban area, where the population is not given to taking responsiblity for the provision of it's own infrastructure servicing (apart from transport).

I can almost guarantee that the recycling of waste water would contribute a far safer outcome in terms of public health, than requiring all to have tanks.

I can also guarantee that charging appropriately for the provision of water will also reduce consumption to managable levels.

cheers,

P (Urban anti-tank missile!)
:cool:

Wood Butcher

30th July 2006, 02:47 PM

Mick have a look here at the "no" argument
http://www.toowoomba.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=784&Itemid=5

Now I know that at least half of the page is scaremongering BS but some of the alternatives are listed there.

As I said it is viable on the long term, but we need short term answers.

journeyman Mick

30th July 2006, 02:52 PM

.......................I can also guarantee that charging appropriately for the provision of water will also reduce consumption to managable levels.....................

Which is of course, all that will probaby happen for the next decade or so. People will jump up and down about the cost and the media will beat it up and then the media will find a juicy sex scandal, people will go back to bitching about the rising petrol prices and life wil return to normal......
Normal, that is, until the next really dry spell......

Mick

Clinton1

30th July 2006, 03:00 PM

I didn't vote, I drink water from Toowoomba managed supplies, but live in another shire - therefor I didn't count!

Some of the mistakes:

They held the referendum because the Federal Govt told them that all Fed Govt funding would be cut off if they didn't. Therefor decision makers couldn't make the decision and get on with it.

The TCC decided that recycled water would go ahead, and ran the YES campaign. This alienated a lot of voters as they didn't believe that they were being presented with all the options, i.e. they didn't get a complete argument for both sides, so they couldn't make an informed decision and voted to keep things as they are.

In the last 2 weeks before the vote there was a lot of information in the local paper (and national) about problems in other countries that recycle in respect to the chemicals that cannot be filtered using existing systems. i.e. the hormones that women on the pill excrete, which is causing drama's in aquatic animal populations and for which evidence is mounting that it is impacting on human health. Basically a scare which wasn't addressed.

The concerns of Downstream Irrigators were not addressed, which was a mistake. The downstream irrigators contribute heavily to both the local and the entire Central Qld economy, and there are significant linkages between the local community and the industries that would be affected. While a compensation package was hinted at, this wouldn't have addressed the removal of a significant contributor to the local, and wider, economy. Basically, the Yes campaign was presented as a solution to ONE problem, a lot of people saw it as creating a lot of problems in other areas and these concerns were not addressed.

There was the usual viewpoint that rural people "just don't get it", and that if its good for the city it should happen. As the community has strong rural links, this came back to bite the YES campaign. Rural people have been dealing with this problem continually (water supply), and didn't see a lot of commonsense in the Yes argument. I think this came back to bite the YES campaign in the bum. Basically - a lot of the voters family and friends exist solely on rainwater, so with all the negative arguments re drinking poo, the simple answer of "you don't have to, we don't - just put in tanks" was compelling.

The No campaign put forward a few commonsense arguments that were not addressed via the Yes campaign. In effect the No side got two arguments - 1. don't drink poo, 2. what about all the other options?
The No vote can also be seen as a vote to sensibly explore other options and to present those options to the community. (thanks Fed Govt, now there will have to be a Referendum for all future 'high expense' water solutions:mad: )

Finally (puff, puff :o ):
The Yes campaign was closely associated with a push for further population growth. There was/is an argument that all of SEQ is too densly populated, and there is this big, wet, rich, undeveloped area just up the road.;)

bitingmidge

30th July 2006, 03:19 PM

I'm not really anti-tank by the way, just anti tank-will-solve-all-our-problems.

For a really sensible piece of tank literature, the National Environmental Health Forum produced this a few years ago:

http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/council/pubs/pdf/rainwtr.pdf

Cheers,

P:D

Rossluck

30th July 2006, 03:24 PM

I agree with Bob Wilson that, in a way, Toowoomba's situation is just an abberation caused by a drought. I lived there for ten years and water was simply not an issue, and I don't think that the population has increased by that much.

But Peter Beattie's interest in the situation is a lot more about Brisbane and the Sunshine and Gold coast areas. The boom continues here pretty well unabated, and just as the roads can't handle the increase in traffic and the medical infrastructure can't handle the health requirements, the water reserves can't handle consumption. Put simply, the QLD Government has been caught out. And I don't just mean Labor. Joh and his successors were similarly guilty of not having the vision to "Set[] broad infrastructure plans based on reasonable forecasts of capacity" as Bitingmidge put it.

I saw the Toowoomba vote as a chance to implement a system that may actually help the ecology a little. The Condamine River suffers from a huge ecological drain, firstly with dams in it's catchment area, and then by a range of water-thirsty farming activities (especially cotton). This of course means that it is a vastly different river from the one that white settlers found.

journeyman Mick

30th July 2006, 03:29 PM

I'm not really anti-tank by the way, just anti tank-will-solve-all-our-problems...............

Whaddaya mean "our" problems? Not my problem, or Outback's,) just all you wasteful southern urbanites!:D :p

Mick (getting ready for (un)civil war and the anti-tank midgessile)

Doughboy

30th July 2006, 03:32 PM

I, being in Canberra, am used to water restrictions. We are now encouraged to install rainwater tanks and if we do so then we can register with our local powers that be and recieve a subsidy. Catch is once you have registered your tank the next and subsequent years you will be billed for water catchment. A bigger farce I have never heard of. Makes you really want to do the right thing.

I have put a tank in with a pressure pump on it. I use the grey water for garden use only, but I know that rainwater can be used in the laundry and toilet now even if the rainwater does end up with heavy metals and not suitable for drinking use it in other ways. This will help with dam levels and extend current drinking water availability.

........... just a thought from a bloke raised on the land during a drought.

Pete

felixe

30th July 2006, 03:34 PM

I want a tank, but not to drink out of! god no, I live in inner city Brisbane and with all the Sh#t in the air and all the traffic it would be nasty!
We never had ross river fever in Tassie, so bugs were not an issue.
But I do think tanks are a good idea, good for the garden and washing cars, house etc. Don't know about the laundry.
Midge, whatabout the thingy that you put "inline" between the downpipe and tank to dump the first runoff from the roof?
I also think that landscaping of gardens should be better, we changed ours and with good plant selection, use of gravel, timber and mulch we have managed to capture most water so we don't have to "water" and we have a thriving garden. Death to lawns I say!!!!
Even as a "knee jerk" reaction it is better than nothing at all, which is what has happened up until now.
I am all for recycled water, and I am also in favour of charging more for the water we use, especially if it helps to fund an upgrade of the old water pipelines in Brisbane that seem to be failing more and more often.

felixe

30th July 2006, 03:35 PM

BTW, what do you put in your tank to stop bugs breeding?
Is there a chemical or is the only solution to make it bug proof.

And let's not forget John Williamson - "Stop Dengue - Ay!"

bitingmidge

30th July 2006, 03:43 PM

There was/is an argument that all of SEQ is too densly populated, and there is this big, wet, rich, undeveloped area just up the road.;)

So all you buggers that wozn't born here should just pizorf somewhere else then! ;)

The trouble is not with too much density of population, it's actually a lack of density to enable us to do anything efficiently. If we shoved all the population of SE Qld into an efficiently planned, easy to service area we'd have no troubles at all. Of course we'd have to decide whether we wanted to be farmers or urban dwellers, no longer any more of this half acre of resource wasting self indulgence.

By way of comparison, the population density of Manhattan is 25,845.7/km²

The population of Queensland on the other hand is 2.1/km²

For ease of calculation, let's say the Population of SE Qld is 2m (it's actually a little more or less depending on where you get your data.

IF we were to plonk everyone in a city built to Manhattan's density, we'd fit in about 80 km² which I suspect is somewhat less than the geographic area of Toowoomba, or maybe it's a similar area.

Imagine that! If everyone in SE Queensland lived in an appropriately dense environment, the longest journey one could make to visit a relative would be to the other side of a town which was 8k wide x 10 long.

Toowoomba already has some 700k of sewers apparently, they'd only need to be a bit bigger.

There'd be bugger all water wasted on washing cars, and watering driveways, we could all walk to work, and we'd only have to walk 4 k's in any direction to get to unspoiled and unpopulated countryside!

The cost of deliveries of all sorts of goods would disappear overnight. I suspect that the mower repair people would be unhappy, but they could always get into the window cleaning business.

Don't give me this too much density claptrap!

cheers,

P
:D :D :D

Clinton1

30th July 2006, 03:44 PM

Tanks produce part of the solution, if you hook them to the washing machine, hot water and the laundry/toilet - and water the vege patch with them.
Also, they can be connected to a filter.

Appropriate useage is a term that springs to mind.

journeyman Mick

30th July 2006, 03:45 PM

BTW, what do you put in your tank to stop bugs breeding?.............

Goldfish

True story, a bloke I know had mossies breeding in his tank and rather than fix the tank so the mossies couldn't get in (not hard to do) threw some goldfish in to eat the wrigglers.

Mick

felixe

30th July 2006, 03:49 PM

:p Obviously!:p
What a great idea!!

Biting midge, I don't agree with your solution of higher population density, it would mean my mother in law would be too close!!:eek:

bitingmidge

30th July 2006, 03:51 PM

Everything comes at a price!
:D :D :D

P

Doughboy

30th July 2006, 03:55 PM

Oh crape

There should be ''another'' city for mother-in-laws only that way we only see them for holidays or other such instances..

Pete

I love my m-i-l dearly when she is in Brisbane and I am in Canberra.

felixe

30th July 2006, 03:56 PM

I'll gladly pay a higher price for water, but "your price" is extortion!!!:eek: :rolleyes:

journeyman Mick

30th July 2006, 04:00 PM

Don't we have a higher population density now than we used to? I mean look at all the stuff they have on TV, Big Brother etc, I mean if that's not a sign of a more dense population, I don't know what is. Sorry, what's that? Oh not that sort of density, the other sort, oops:o I rest my case.;)

Mick

Sir Stinkalot

30th July 2006, 04:13 PM

The way I see it (all be it from 450km away), is the population is increasing, but no increased water storage, ie, dams.

Down here its isn't the number of dams that is the problem, it is getting enough wet stuff to fill them. Building a dam may look like a good solution to the problem and instill false hope in some but if there is nothing to fill them then it is a waste of time and money. Rainfall further north may be a different issue than down south.

Clinton1

30th July 2006, 04:27 PM

Higher population density .... bah! As if it only applied to SEQ. Got a little bit of tunnel vision there Midge?

I think its time to get away for SEQ being further developed and start to apply a little Strategic Planning and pushing the population to north QLd.
Isn't there an argument for developing other cities/areas in Qld? Something about many economies of scale, rather than just one sprawling, poorly planned city?

The Manhattan argument is incomplete. Put all of SEQ's population into Toowoomba... where would you harvest all the required water from (discount putting a tap up everyones bum;) )?
Part of the problem is that the 'idiot educated' look overseas for solutions and forget about considering all the factors. i.e. Manhattans average rainfall is 47.2 inches, Toowoomba is 37 inches. I do believe that Manhattan is situated beside a river that dwarfs any of ours, and has much lower evapotranspiration. God, I hate these morons that look overseas and thieve a 'solution', bring it over here and pretend that their head isn't inserted where the tap should be! (not directed at you personally, BM!)

Good to see that you assumed that my comment was about "So all you buggers that wozn't born here should just pizorf somewhere else then!". My comment wasn't about that, nor do i think that was part of the Toowoomba No voters perspective.

Rather than the assumption that the average farmer is an uninformed redneck who likes downing a carton and "gown pig shootn", most of them are either running multi-million dollar businesses and being world leaders at it, or they are developing small farm holdings to become multi-milion dollar businesses. The average city dwellers technnlogical uptake is with mobile phones so they can watch big brother while at 'work', whereas the farmer is more likely to be buying this http://www.terrabyte.net.au/services_farm.htm, and using soil impedance mapping tied to GPS based soil prep and yield measurement, and working out how to get a decent ROI on it.

nice try at the weekend argument though 'Midge! :D

bitingmidge

30th July 2006, 06:04 PM

Higher population density .... bah! As if it only applied to SEQ. Got a little bit of tunnel vision there Midge?
Vision is indeed what I have! :D :D

I think its time to get away for SEQ being further developed and start to apply a little Strategic Planning and pushing the population to north QLd.
Isn't there an argument for developing other cities/areas in Qld? Something about many economies of scale, rather than just one sprawling, poorly planned city?
Yes, but the sprawling poorly planned city shouldn't be there at all! The sprawl is just a function of desirability "lifestyle" that exists because idiot politicians provide services to it (or don't). If sewerage, sealed roads, and water were provided where it was efficient to provide it, then the desirability of the sprawl would be reduced!

The Manhattan argument is incomplete. Put all of SEQ's population into Toowoomba... where would you harvest all the required water from (discount putting a tap up everyones bum;) )?
From all of the current supplies that feed us all. It's not rocket science, jsut takes a big pump! ;) In any case, why would the population go to Toowoomba (which I used by way of comparison only)? It would surely be better served where there is a beach, a port and direct access to rail links to the rest of Qld? Maybe Surfers Paradise since it already has a head start.

Part of the problem is that the 'idiot educated' look overseas for solutions and forget about considering all the factors. That's most of the problem actually!

i.e. Manhattans average rainfall is 47.2 inches, Toowoomba is 37 inches. I do believe that Manhattan is situated beside a river that dwarfs any of ours, and has much lower evapotranspiration.
And the population of Manhattan is similar to the population of SEQ (give or take) however, it doesn't have the benefit of vacant land for thousands of K's around it. It actually has a population of 15m or so surrounding it and sharing resources. When considering those factors, our densification model is starting to look pretty impressive eh?

God, I hate these morons that look overseas and thieve a 'solution', bring it over here and pretend that their head isn't inserted where the tap should be! (not directed at you personally, BM!) I understand what you are saying completely! But I hate the morons who don't pull their head out to look overseas even more!

Rather than the assumption that the average farmer is an uninformed redneck who likes downing a carton and "gown pig shootn", Then you've met some of my mates eh? ;)
most of them are either running multi-million dollar businesses and being world leaders at it, or they are developing small farm holdings to become multi-milion dollar businesses. and might I add are the most heavily subsidised industry in the country to boot!

The average city dwellers technnlogical uptake is with mobile phones so they can watch big brother while at 'work', whereas the farmer is more likely to be buying this http://www.terrabyte.net.au/services_farm.htm, and using soil impedance mapping tied to GPS based soil prep and yield measurement, and working out how to get a decent ROI on it.
That's exactly I say again EXACTLY why the opinion of the average city dweller should never be considered. That's EXACTLY why the Toowoomba poll was/is a crock of untreated effluent!

nice try at the weekend argument though 'Midge! :D
Thanks! (the weekend's not over by a long chalk by the way! ;) )

Cheers,

P

Rossluck

30th July 2006, 06:05 PM

Just so that people who've never lived on tank water can appreciate what it's like, I thought I'd relay our experiences. We've lived primarily on tank water for 6 years now. In winter when it's dry here (Gold Coast hinterland) we tend to order in about three loads. We have one 5,000 gallon (22,730.45 litre) tank, and SWMBO has been pestering me about getting another one. A truck load pretty-well fills the tank and costs around $120 (going up all the time).

We've only had one bad experience in the time that we were here, and that is when yours truly left a pipe disconnected during maintenance and a frog climbed in and died. The taste of the frog decomposing was immediately obvious (sorry about the image), and SWMBO - a microbiologist - insisted we empty out and clean the hell out of the tank and then get a new load in. [anecdotally, the same thing happened in Toowoomba in the 1890's, when a man committed sucide in the town's water supply].

Outside of that, we don't feel that there is any danger in drinking tank water. In fact, we notice a negative difference when the town water is delivered to us. It's harder and has a "flat" taste, probably from treatment.

One thing is obvious, though, you learn to be ultra-careful with water. I saw a post from SilentC a few weeks ago were he was trying to find a solution for the cold water that runs into the sink before the hot comes through when you have a shave. That's exactly the sort of thing that annoys you. And you're forever pointing out to the kids that "you never leave the water running". You tend to buy front loading washing machines that use a lot less water, and you install a dishwasher in the hope that you can use it in the rainy season. The idea of using your precious tank water to water the garden is beyond imagination, although a few pots might get a drink. Apart from the small amount of sullage water we use on the garden, the general idea is that "if it can't live here without supplementary water, then the plant doesn't belong". SWMBO must have the same attitude about me, because - I hate to admit this - I have the "last bath". Each night we run a bath for the - two small - kids, then it's topped up for SWMBO, and then topped up for me. This water goes into the sullage tank with the wahing up and laundry water and it goes onto the garden.

You get used to living like this and it isn't a hardship or inconvenience.

ozwinner

30th July 2006, 06:16 PM

There is a new housing estate being developed just north of Meblourne at the moment.
Nothing is going to leave the estate, all the waste is going to be treated on site and reused.
The people who buy the blocks are going to pay a premium to live there, I beleive they have sold lots of blocks.

Al :)

Wood Butcher

30th July 2006, 06:20 PM

Well, I was on the phone to the old boy this afternoon for our weekly chat and he said the rain he got in Warwick (its 1hr south of Toowoomba) last week filled all of his tanks. He now has 22,000 gallons of rainwater. Reckons it should see him through till at least christmas:D

Wood Butcher

30th July 2006, 06:25 PM

ozwinner

30th July 2006, 06:39 PM

There is a great book by Linda Cockburn (no its not a porno story) about permaculture. "Living the Good Life" ISBN 1-74066-312-8

It about a 6 months experiment to live as self-sufficient as possible on a small property (1 acre?) in Gympie, QLD. The made their own power, used rain water and even a composting toilet. It probably is the extreme end of the scale but some of the ideas are great and I will be implementing them when I build my next house.

There is also a website about this www.lintrezza.com (http://www.lintrezza.com)

Que Grunt.........

I wonder where he is?:confused:
He is usually pretty voicefull on all things recycle.

Deep down Im a greenie, there, Ive said it.
My next place hopefully will be on a coupla acres ( no, not them sort of achers :o ) and I will be doing all things good in the way of power and water management.

Al :)

ernknot

30th July 2006, 06:48 PM

There is ,its called Amsterdam. Anyway that's where mine is.

Lignum

30th July 2006, 06:49 PM

Nothing is going to leave the estate, all the waste is going to be treated on site and reused.
Al :)

Isnt that the Lexus center your talking about:confused:

ozwinner

30th July 2006, 06:52 PM

Isnt that the Lexus center your talking about:confused:

:p No. :p

I can find out if you want, its just down the road, as is all Melbournes developement.

Al :)

Auld Bassoon

30th July 2006, 06:53 PM

Isnt that the Lexus center your talking about:confused:

Said waste will be turned into Camrys :D :D

Lignum

30th July 2006, 06:54 PM

:p No. :p

I can find out if you want, its just down the road, as is all Melbournes developement.

Al :)

I have always been curious as to what they do with all the crap that comes out of their:rolleyes: :)

Clinton1

30th July 2006, 08:22 PM

'Midge,
instead of taking 10 pages to end up agreeing that we are both chasing the same point (and boring everyone), I'll go back to my first post.

The Yes campaign was closely associated with a push for further population growth. There was/is an argument that all of SEQ is too densly populated, and there is this big, wet, rich, undeveloped area just up the road

I happen to share this view.
I don't think that continual 'growth' through population growth in one area of 1.72 million square km state is particularly desirable. 81.5% of Qld's population is in the Brisbane/Moreton area. I believe that this area has exceeded its natural 'carrying capacity'.

I have absolutely no idea why continual population growth in SEQ is so strongly promoted and pursued by the Qld Govt. (actually I do, but thats another thread)

To me it would make much more sense to plan for and to promote population growth in other QLD regional centres, particularly those that are coastal.

This also opens the potential to properly plan for that increased growth, allowing us to get away from haphazard sprawl based on zoning decisions made by idiotically, sorry that should be popularly, elected local council officials.

Bushmiller

30th July 2006, 08:49 PM

Only just seen ths thread. Just taking a few isolated points.

The major population centres rarely seem to catch water from their own area , but ironcally rely on drier hinterlands (eg Brisbane and Sydney).

The situation is aggravated by increased population levels without increased water storage arrangements.

My subjective observations are that it is drier than it used to be and while it may well be part of a weather cycle, that is no consolation if you are at the bottom of a 25 year trough.

The tanks people are installng are nowhere near large enough and my impression is that they are bought purely to reap their share of any rebate on offer. 5000gal to my mind is an absolute minimum. I appreciate space can be an issue.

I think the NO vote got up in Toowoomba because people are not short enough of water and neither is it too expensive.....yet!

You are short of water when...

You never ever wash the car.
You never ever water the garden.
You never bath... only shower.
When you shower you get wet for 20 seconds and turn off the water, soap up and then turn it on again for up to 60 seconds to rinse off.
You don't always flush the toilet each time you use it.
You travel to nearby towns to do your laundry.
Once a fortnight you travel to a town and bring back water in drums in your ute or trailer ( or you buy it at approx $130 a pop)

The previous scenario was in NSW, but very comparable to the Toowoomba situation.

Our water storage there was 8,000 gals for five people. Nowhere near enough. Nowadays we have 22,000 gals for two people but don't live there full time. Currently we live near Toowoomba. A son does lives in Toowoomba and a daughter in Brissy.

I feel sufficiently close to the issue to be incensed by the reactionary attitudes.

Cheers (watery toast)
Paul

journeyman Mick

31st July 2006, 12:30 AM

................I think its time to get away for SEQ being further developed and start to apply a little Strategic Planning and pushing the population to north QLd..........................

Hey, you keep all that population down there! Some "visionary" government planning team designated the area around here as a "growth node" and pencilled us in for 30K extra people, with another similar area about 20 mins away with 30K extra people. Never mind that water supplies are low and there's no town water to these areas and the fact that the road up the hill from Cairns is overloaded as it is. I'm all for BM's model of Manhattan-like density - as long as it's Not In My Back Yard. :D :p

Mick

goat

31st July 2006, 07:55 AM

WATER...... It has been scientifically proven that if we drink litre of water each day, at the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1 kilo of escherichia coli bacteria found in faeces, in other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of sh!#!

However, we do not run that risk when drinking BEER because alcohol has to go through a distillation process of boiling, filtering and fermenting.

WATER = sh!#
BEER = HEALTH

Free yourself of sh!#, drink BEER!!!

It is better to drink beer and talk sh!# than to drink water and be full of sh!#.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information; I am doing it as a public service.:D

reeves

31st July 2006, 08:45 AM

ahh what a sad and sorry debate, all the confusion and opinionating. And the government wants people to vote again, whilst anyone on mains water is tiill flushing good drinking water down the toilet.

The shame about the recycling vote is that we probably need to recycle water, to not recycle is stupid and wasteful. To promote sewage recycling as drinkning water is the dumbest political stance i have seen, it doomed them from the get go.

So what is the solution ?

Upgrade water management practices to suit current situation, lots of people, little water.

As mains water is used domesticly for 3 main uses, drinking/cooking, washing, people clothes etc, and then toilets and gardening, it would suggest a situation whereby the actualuse of water is seperated going into any given building. So we need 3 pipes in not one...

one pipe carries drinking water only
one pipe carries lower grade domestic water for washing etc
one pipe carries recycled water for use in toilets and gardens etc..

you would only need recycled water for drinkning when things got really low.

Now i know the cost and strategy behind this would be huge, even in Toowooomba but it seems we need to upgrade our brains as to how we actually manage water and what we need from it.

cheeeeeeers
john

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 01:57 PM

So where does the local council store all the

" lower grade domestic water for washing etc
recycled water for use in toilets and gardens etc.."

until we need to use it.

They must be storing it if we are going to need another two pipes into each building to use it

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 02:00 PM

Just thought; we would also need another two pipes out again to carry the various types of sullage to the various storage areas.

silentC

31st July 2006, 02:39 PM

So where does the local council store all the...
In tanks in each household's backyard ;)

Recently someone told me they are being charged $7000 by the council to connect to the new sewer, in addition our council is about to put up sewerage rates to subsidise infrastructure improvements. All that does is to put the problem off for another few years. Instead, if they subsidised each new house to install a grey water treatment plant (less than $7000), then get people to flush their bogs, wash their cars and hose their gardens with that, they would only be using fresh water for drinking and showering/washing.

This is a scalable solution because every new development would automatically include the required sewerage capacity, rather than spending millions every decade to install more pipes and bigger holding tanks. The technology is almost there where it is safe for this treated water to be sprayed on gardens without any environmental impact. The only limitation at present is that you need 200 sq. metres to disperse it over. When they can do away with that, I don't see why a suburban house couldn't do something similar.

We flush our bogs with recycled sewerage and to date there is no sign of any smell. The water is a bit cloudy but we put a blue loo through it once every now and then and we find it turns the water green for weeks after the thing has run out. Still working on a filter for it.

bitingmidge

31st July 2006, 02:41 PM

we probably need to recycle water, to not recycle is stupid and wasteful.
Except for water used in specific chemical reactions where its molecular chemistry changes, all water is currently recycled at the moment.

The problem with the whole debate is that it's not about recycling, it's actually about consumption.

If the provision of treated drinking water was charged according to its value as a scarce commodity, then consumption would be reduced and people would look to more frugal usage.

To say it is wasteful to for instance: wash my car, is not correct when water is available and is provided in sufficient quantity for me to do that.

All of the runoff finds its way into the water table or into the sky through evaporation or even transpiration, where it is recycled in a closed system (there are no losses in that process).

I think the term "waste" is bandied around just as incorrectly and emotionally as the term "treated sewage" which of course the treated water is not.

Treated sewage is the effluent left after the water has been extracted.

Perhaps if indeed the Toowoomba city fathers had really intended (as has been widely reported) that treated sewage be reticulated, it is just as well the vote was lost! :eek:

P:D

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 04:14 PM

Except for water used in specific chemical reactions where its molecular chemistry changes, all water is currently recycled at the moment. P:D

We haven't always had water on the earth, so where does absolutely brand new water come from then?

bitingmidge

31st July 2006, 04:17 PM

Specific chemical reactions!

:D :D :D

P

silentC

31st July 2006, 04:19 PM

We haven't always had water on the earth
Haven't we?

ernknot

31st July 2006, 04:22 PM

Drink more beer save the water.

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 04:33 PM

Haven't we? No :)

silentC

31st July 2006, 04:34 PM

How do you know? Your age only shows 61, and even by biblical accounts the earth is older than that :p

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 04:40 PM

Except for water used in specific chemical reactions

P:D

So if I understand you correctly, we get some water that has been subjected to a specific chemical reaction and from this we can get brand new water that hasn't been around before. ... brilliant, let's apply a specific chemical reaction to all the water everywhere and then we won't have a problem anymore. :D

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 04:42 PM

How do you know? Your age only shows 61, and even by biblical accounts the earth is older than that :p

My Mum is older than me and she told me. Unless of course you are calling my Mum a liar. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

silentC

31st July 2006, 04:54 PM

Unless of course you are calling my Mum a liar.
Heaven forfend :eek: Sorry Mrs Willson :o

bitingmidge

31st July 2006, 05:01 PM

Actually, just reading through the last few pages of this thread, I reckon if the Toowoomba mob were to treat it appropriately, they could top up their drinking water with it!

:D :D :D
P

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 05:08 PM

Nah, they'd never get it all out. :)

goat

31st July 2006, 05:46 PM

Recycled water can turn male fish into females, according to Queensland Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg.
Mr Springborg cited what he said was research detailing the sex change powers of recycled water when questioned on why he did not support plans to use purified recycled water for drinking.:eek:best stick to drinkin beer other wise ya balls could drop off

Rossluck

31st July 2006, 06:51 PM

ernknot

31st July 2006, 07:14 PM

All water on earth is "recycled" there is no such thing as new water. Natures recycling process is somewhat better than what is proposed.

Rocker

31st July 2006, 07:27 PM

Bob,

It is clear from the geological record that there have been oceans on the earth for at least 1500 million years, and probably much longer. I have seen marine fossils (stromatolites) in rocks 1500 million years old.

rocker

Bob Willson

31st July 2006, 07:47 PM

I'm not saying that he oceans rivers and lakes haven't been there for a while now, all I'm asking is where all that water came from originally?

I refuse to believe that it suddenly appeared out of nowhere so how did it come about originally? Did it undergo specific chemical reactions?

craigb

31st July 2006, 07:51 PM

I all I'm asking is where all that water came from originally?

Comets was what I had been lead to believe.

That and chemical reactions in the primordial soup that was the early Earth's atmosphere.

Bodgy

31st July 2006, 09:50 PM

Haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

There's a an old postulation that I came across reading about some modern psuedo science that says molecules put in water somehow keep their properties when diluted with water. Can't remember the name of it, but akin to Reiki and all that alternative bs. Strange, Lizzy II, an otherwise sensible old thing, believes in it.

I digress.

The postulation is known as 'Cleopatra's Piddle'. I says that with our ecosystem, we have all drank of water that contains, however minutely, Cleopatras urine.

There is only a finite amount of water on Earth, and it constantly recycles.

I think Toowoomba is living evidence of the Donkey Vote.

Singapore, Switzerland, London, Adelaide, lots of USA already drink treated effluent, haven't heard of too many fishes undergoing sex changes yet. Still they are probably not National Party voters.

Greg Ward

1st August 2006, 09:20 AM

water is a natural cosequence of certain chemical reactions.

H2SO4 +PbO--> PbSO4 + H2O

(Sorry about the subscripts)

Or Sulphuric Acid, a common volcanic chemical, when reacting with a metallic ore or an oxide, will form a separate metallic compound and water.

I have used Lead above as this is the common reaction that takes place in automotive battery construction.

Several billions of years ago, there waere plenty of chemical reactions going on, lot of sulphuric acid, and lots of generation of Oxygen gas as well as all the water you see around today.

Regards
Greg

silentC

1st August 2006, 09:46 AM

I think Bob is angling at whether or not you can just make more water. Is that right Bob?

I gather you can but it probably takes lots of energy and if you made enough of it, I suppose the sea level would rise a lot ;) Maybe Dick Smith should just tow another iceberg into Sydney harbour :)

Bob Willson

1st August 2006, 03:13 PM

Yes silent, that is what I was asking, as well as asking if the process is STILL occurring naturally.
Comets landing (read smashing into) on the earth would still have had to have an original way of making the water they consist of. Water is, as Greg has pointed out, a compound.
PS The sea level wouldn't rise if we used materials from the bottom of the sea to make the water, as it could then just fill in the gap that is left. :)

silentC

1st August 2006, 03:33 PM

I have always understood (and believed) that there is a finite amount of water that is constantly recycled through the hydrologic cycle.

I'm aware of a few different theories on how the water was originally formed but of course no-one really knows. I've never heard the idea that new water could be created naturally. There are plenty of man-made processes that 'recover' water but they are only extracting it from the atmosphere, not creating it from base elements.

Waiting to be enlightened ;)

Clinton1

1st August 2006, 03:38 PM

It could be made (anything can happen :rolleyes: ) and it can be obtained from seawater.
The reason it isn't is because it is expensive?
Much cheaper to get it from rain or recycling.

craigb

1st August 2006, 04:21 PM

Well if you got 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom that hadn't known each other before and then got them to join, wouldn't that then be a new molecule of water? :confused:

silentC

1st August 2006, 04:23 PM

Yeah but if it was that simple there wouldn't be any oxygen or hydrogen left and we'd all be swimming (and growing gills).

The question is, does it happen spontaneously in nature: I don't think so but could be wrong. The other question is, what benefit, if any, is there in working out some way of producing water from 'thin air' and would it solve the problem, or more importantly, create other ones?

Zed

1st August 2006, 04:35 PM

water is H2O that is;

2 parts hydrogen (the type of hydrogen that only has one proton and electron - thus NOT heavy water)
and one part oxygen.Current scientific belief is tha matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change states. the 3 states of matter are Solid, liquid, gas.

The big bang spread all the initial matter about in a a big explosion (hence big bang). The gases then coalesed into clouds (eg Magellic clouds) mostly as hydrogen and a few of the smaller sized elements... and the attraction of gravity meant that as more matter attracted to itself its gravity drew more matter into itself. as it draws into itself it causes in effect more gravity thus more attraction thus more heat and pressure.

when this happens you get friction then eventually to ignite your thermonuclear pile and viola! a star ignites. as the matter ball coaleses it starts spinning (like a top) (and also like a spiral galaxy... ;) ) other bits of bundles of matter start spinning about the central nucleaus and with thier own gravity attract more matter themselves. they obtain angular velocity and also orbit the host star. these become planets, comets & asteroids. Why all this guff ??? well....getting there... remember I said earlier hydrogen and smaller elements - Ie Helium, Nitrogen & Oxygen to name a but a few.... when the thermonuclear reaction consumes the raw feul of a star (Hydrogen) it causes as waste products helium which further down the track frees a whole bunch of protons and elections - leading to the heavier elements. as this happens bits of hydrogen coalese with oxygen and water is formed this water (as ice) is gravitated to the planets or more likely created on the planet. (this is a very simplistic model and you could probably shoot holes all thru it but I beleive the basics are correct..)

the earth is a closed system (except the odd meteorite or comet impact - these are generally miniscule impacts of bugger all mass)all the mass we have was WITH EARTH when it formed from the primordial gases as it gravitated in the creation of the solar system. all the water was "created" at various times by the fusing of H & O.

we cant create more matter.
we cant destroy it (Except in anti matter and black holes but thats a whole bunch of out there speculation at the moment)...
we have been recycling water for billion years (remember the water cycle you studied at school ?)
we can remove impurities from existing water
its not feasible by man as a commercial enterprise to fuse hydrogen and oxygen to create new water
the argument in QLD is more about drinking Aunt Bessie's wee rather than recycling in itself.
if the water is cleaned properly at the recycling plant is probably better for you than drinking from a creek where a cow died upstream - except the additives liek flouride etc that we want and other naturally occuring trace elements.
Water spends on average (These numbers in proportion) :
12 days as gas in the air
100,000 yrs in the ocean
300,000 (I think) as ground water
10'000's of years as icewe should be pumping the DEEP resouvoirs and planting trees.

Here endeth the lesson.

Shoot me down like a dog - please - I want to be corrected if any of the abovce is wrong.