AlternateRoute

When Sydney Water first released details of the desalination plant, it had a short list of three sites; Port Kembla, Kurnell and Malabar.
Port Kembla was then dismissed as being limited to a 125ML/day plant.
Miraculously, the costs for the remaining two sites were estimated to be exactly the same. The prime reason that Kurnell was chosen was that the land at Malabar had unknown levels of contamination and the strict timeline for building the plant meant the “greenfield” site at Kurnell had the advantage.
By the time the plan was put on hold, (after the sudden discovery of huge amounts of water within the vast cavern between Morris Iemma’s ears), the site at Kurnell had been purchased.
Now it is revealed (Sunday Telegraph, 11 February) that the site is actually contaminated with 100,000 tonnes of material containing asbestos.
Perhaps it is time for the government to reconsider the siting of the plant, for if it must be built, it is better built on a site closer to where the water will be used, and avoid the need for a massive water pipe under Botany Bay.

But if Peter Debenham (Peter who?) wins office on 24 March, he says he will scrap the desalination plant and implement recycling for drinking water instead. In the past the government has perpetuated two myths about recycling. Firstly, that we wouldn’t drink it (of course people say no when you show them a picture of a tap connected to a toilet) and secondly, that treated sewage would have to be pumped from the coast to Warragamba. (Notwithstanding the sewage from Glenfield and Liverpool is already pumped out to Malabar)
Debenham’s plan would see the sewage being treated where it is produced (in the west) and pumped to Prospect Reservior where it would be shandied with drinking water from Warragamba and fed through the existing water treatment plant.

Of course it is unlikely that the Liberals will win the election, but that shouldn’t stop Premier Iemma having a serious look at Debenham’s recycling scheme. The current plans for recycling under the Metropolitan Water Plan rely heavily on third pipe systems in newly developing areas. This doesn’t mean the city will be using less water, it merely slows down the growth in water usage. There is a big difference between the two.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 17th, 2007 at 1909 and is filed under Environment.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.