"The Mayor of Toowoomba, Di Thorley, says the case for water recycling in Australia has been dealt a severe blow as a result of yesterday's poll in the south-east Queensland city.
Around 60 per cent of residents have voted 'no' to a plan to draw 25 per cent of the city's water from recycled effluent."
... reports ABC Online.
Luke left the following comment earlier this morning at an earlier blog post on this issue:
"And there you have it - should put the sword through any other politicians trying to run the agenda for some time. A powerful option gone from the toolkit."
Yet the front page of today's The Sunday Mail includes the headline:
"Recycled Water Vote No, But Beattie sets date for new southeast referendum".
Last Friday, before the vote was lost, Graham Young blogging at Ambit Gambit, suggested it was not a bad election issue for the Premier to run on.
It is interesting to ponder why Toowoomba voted against waste water recycling.
The 'no campaign' played on the 'yuk' factor and it is unclear to what extent the push was supported by local irrigators who have been using the city's sewage to water their lucerne for about 60 years.
Perhaps the outcome could be seen as one group of resource users out-smarting a city council so they retain access to 'cheap water' so they can keep growing lucerne for their cows?
My understanding is that Goulburn will soon be drinking recycled sewage and that there will not be a referendum.
Economics and science would suggest that recycling waste water is the way to go for places like Toowoomba and Brisbane, but now it seems politics is getting in the way?
Interestingly I support the Australian Greens on this issue. Since 2004 it has been their policy to:
"Implement national policies that facilitate a decrease in per capita consumption of fresh water and expand opportunities for its re-use."
...............................
Update next day, 31st July
I expanded this blog piece into an article titled 'Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba' published this morning by On Line Opinion which you can read by clicking here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4742 .
[...] Jennifer Marohasy Toowoomba Votes Against Water Recycling Posted by root 22 hours ago (https://climatelab.com.au) Jul 30 2006 luke left the following comment earlier this morning at an earlier and deduct the cost of a garden shed from the cost of the tanks stand powered by wordpress theme design by andreas viklund and internet thinking Discuss | Bury | News | jennifer marohasy toowoomba votes against water recycling [...]
WOW u guys need to uopdate this site a bit dont you think. Does any one have anything on wats happening 2day with the water stuff
The problem with the recycled sewage plant proposed for Toowoomba is that it just would not work.
It is not possible to produce 11,000 ML of recycled water from 8,000 ML of sewage. Toowoomba City Council also had nowhere for the RO waste stream to go. Acland Coal did not want it. Singapore pumps its RO waste stream into the sea.
The plant could never have been built for $68 million - closer to $150-200 million would be more accurate when you take into account the hundreds of acres of evaporation ponds required which were not included in the budget.
Regardless of your view on recycled water use, the no vote in Toowoomba was correct because the proposal was a dud.
Luke, I have 2 pressure pumps, working at any one time.
One is on rain water, tank supply to the house, with 4 adults & a teenager to supply.
The other supplies outside water for garden, stock water, car washing, etc. pumped up, from a dam, to a tank at the house.
Both pumps are 1 HP, a little larger than a suburban house would require.
My electric bill ranges from $275, to $325 per quarter, depending on the amount of airconditioning, or heating that is happening.
Our usage is high, because of 3 fridges, 2 freesers, 2 hot water systems, 4 TVs, & 1 pool.
Water pressure pumps only run while pumping, which is not for that long. My estimation of usage would be about 1/3Rd the time/cost of running a pool pump.
I yield to Sir Ian's back o' envelope.
Ian - still interested in the cost of electricity with any pumps. I have been told that it's not the running cost of the pumps per se, moreover the startup current. Don't have numbers but maybe someone out there in blog land may know. i.e. depends on how often one pings the pump to move water upstairs (assuming one has an upstairs and is using in the house).
And a question - what period of the historical rainfall record have you modelled the tank water balance over?
Thanks for this, Blair. The cost of water from a tank will vary depending on the total rainfall in a given year. In a very dry year the annual cost of the tank is spread over fewer tank fulls so the cost per litre goes up. The opposite takes place in a good year but if it is too good then demand for garden water will drop and the overall volume will be slightly lower. The cost also varies with the size of the tank so one that is too small will lose too much from overflow in the wet season and not store enough in the dry.
But in an ideal world where the weekly household needs are met by a weekly equivalent rainfall, on schedule, then the average annual household need of 255,000 litres would be met by a 4,900 litre tank that fills up 52 times. This would spread the annual $77 cost of the $1080 tank over 52 tank fulls for a cost of 30 cents/Kl.
But the more variation we have from this ideal the larger the tank we need and the higher the cost will go. It is also complicated by the losses from overflow and the cost of buying mains water in the dry season.
But in a normal year in Brisbane the optimum 13,500 litre tank will deliver 87% of the average households needs and the combined average cost of both mains and tank water will be 69 cents/Kl.
In a below average year with only 857mm (81%) of normal this 13,500 litre tank will still deliver 82% of the average household need (assuming no changes in water use habits in response to the drought) and the average cost of both mains and tank water will increase to 74 cents/Kl.
Interestingly, in the year from April 2005 to April 2006, an above average year with 1245mm and an unusual 239mm of that in June 2005, this tank would have delivered only 86% of the average household need and the average price would be 70 cents/kl, a cent higher than in the average year. This is because 2.88 of the 4.43 tank fulls of rain in that month overflowed down the drain. whereas if that rain had been evenly spread over the following three dry months there would have been significant cost savings.
When we add $1,025 worth of plumbing and pressure pumps, this cost increases by 50% to $1.04/Kl and $1.11/Kl respectively.
Add another $1,025 worth of local council compliance costs and these costs will increase to $1.38/Kl and $1.48/Kl respectively.
I have modelled this for a range of tank sizes but my blog won't take spreadsheets. But in Brisbane in a normal year, in the absence of local council bull$hit, tank water is no more than the cost of mains water and is likely to get cheaper as mains water costs increase.