Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Evidence of Housing Crisis in the Basscoast
The Star Newspaper March 30, 2010
The Sentinel Times Newspaper March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Here is an example of a Government letter and our response
Annoyed at the form responses you are getting from the government to your letters about the desalination plant? Feeling that you aren’t being listened to and your questions aren’t being answered? Write back anyway, at least it might give someone a job, cutting and pasting more form replies.
Here is an example of a Government letter and our response:
DESALINATION PROJECT
Thank you for your letter of XX XXXXX 2009 to the Premier regarding the Wonthaggi desalination plant. I am responding on the Premier’s behalf.
Victoria has a long history as a leader in developing innovative approaches to manage water resources.
Victoria hasn’t really sought a new source of water since the Thomson dam was proposed in the 1970’s, the Government have sat on their hands despite many, many years of warnings and continue to lag in the development of aquifer storage / recovery, purified recycled water and incentives for rainwater tanks and continue to waste 30 Gl per annum by allowing logging in our catchments.
For example, Victoria was the first jurisdiction in Australia to unbundle our water entitlements – which allows them to be bought and sold independently of land - enabling them to be traded more freely and to support farmers to manage their future more flexibly.
I’m not sure this is a good thing, water available to the highest bidder and in unregulated? quantities!
In keeping with this history of innovation, in 2007, the Victorian Government released Our Water Our Future: The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan – to secure water supplies for a growing population and economy in the face of drought and to add to climate change. Innovative approaches such as water recycling and conservation are a small important components of this plan.
And these options are likely to be further sidelined due to the excessive size of the desalination plant
For example, the Water Plan includes an upgrade of Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide more than 100 billion litres of Class A recycled water a year from 2012.
And then pumping the majority out to sea (more than 60% of it for decades to come).
The Government is investigating potential uses for this water including watering parks and gardens, irrigation projects and third-pipe systems in new housing estates.
But don’t have the foresight to allow the obvious and ultimate sustainable option; further treatment of the Class A water to purified recycled water to allow it to be safely used as drinking water via our reservoirs, or via Aquifer Storage / Recovery.
Investigations are currently underway to identify projects which are both cost effective and have significant community benefits.
Assistance is also being provided through the Smart Water Fund to encourage industry to develop innovative solutions to recycle water. For example, the Smart Water Fund has provided funding to the Melbourne Aquarium to recycle up to 20,000 litres (this is just the quantity of a single household water tank) of water per week, through a combination of rooftop rainwater collection, Melbourne Aquarium only have a tiny 5000 litre tank!, and why aren’t tanks being retrofitted as mandatory to all public buildings?
desalination and reclaimed water from freshwater displays.(what are the economics of doing this for such a small return, this ain’t going to solve Melbourne’s water sustainability)
As a result of Government investment in water recycling since 1999, Melbourne now uses more recycled water than any other Australian city.(but still at a level to be very ashamed of)
In 2007/08, Melbourne used 66.7 billion litres of recycled water – almost three times the amount used by the next closest Australian city.
And nearly half this is completely bogus use ‘on site’ at treatment plants, flushing pipes, etc. The rest is largely low grade agricultural use. South East QLD and Adelaide are way ahead.
The Government is also encouraging business and industry to reduce water use through a range of targeted programs, including the WaterMAP program, which requires large water users to develop a water savings plan,which the government doesn’t enforce, or penalise if targets not met and the provision of grants to innovative water saving projects through the Smart Water Fund. With this assistance, Melbourne’s business and industry have reduced their water use by 38 per cent compared with the 1990s.
They did this largely off their own bat early and there has been very little improvement over recent years with the ‘Smart Water’ Fund and other ‘initiatives’
As you can see, the Government has adopted a range of innovative approaches to secure Victoria’s water supplies. However, saving and recycling water is not enough and Victoria needs to increase its water supplies. This is why the Victorian Government committed to building a 150 GL desalination plant at Wonthaggi.
Ignoring the economic and environmental benefits available from the alternative augmentation options, and in fact excluding them by the obscene scale of desalination chosen.
The desalination plant is being delivered as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) under the Government’s Partnerships Victoria framework. The Partnerships Victoria framework requires that bids for the desalination plant project be tested against the Government’s benchmark, the Public Sector Comparator (PSC).
An instrument that is not transparent to public scrutiny and just a tool to justify poor government decision making, see: http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2009/07/08/1246732378094.html
It enables the Government to test whether a private investment proposal offers value for money in comparison with the most efficient form of public procurement. The PSC underscores the Victorian Government’s commitment to only use PPPs if they represent good value for money and are in the public interest.
Why can’t we see the figures then? The State Government refuse to release the business case for abandoned use of recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant. They haven’t even done a business case for the desalination plant. The public’s confidence in it’s government is seriously diminished by this kind of behaviour.
Desalinated water will be delivered from the private sector to the State Government owned water authorities who will deliver this water to households. The Government will own the water, thus the public interest and ownership of water is protected.
But the government has given this consortium guarantees to purchase their water ahead of cheaper options, and refuses to disclose the contracts around its supply (even after saying that the contracts would be made available after signing).
The AquaSure consortium has been awarded the contract to build the $3.5 billion
$4.8 billion at least, as admitted by AquaSure chairman on ABC’s Stateline program 31st July 2009. Click here to see a short segment. desalination plant which will result in as many as 1,700 direct new jobs.
Far fewer jobs than would have been secured by cheaper sustainable alternatives. And they would have been long term ongoing jobs where the desal plant will only have about 50 ongoing jobs long term.
The delivery of this project will provide a new drinking water supply that is not rainfall dependent.
Recycling and efficiency measures are also rainfall independant, and there is so much totally untapped stormwater that this argument becomes a bit pale.
Once in operation the plant will provide 150 billion litres of water each year to Melbourne and regional Victoria.
Which regions? South Gippsland Water doesn’t need it, having a water security plan in place to 2050 without desalination.
The project represents value for money for water users,
Not at five or more times current water price as would appear to be the case from the price tag ($4.8+billion) with AquaSure able to secure finance for the project in a challenging economic climate.
Only with the State (us) taking a substantial chunk of the risk. What was that about PPP’s allowing the private sector to bear the risk?
The project will have the flexibility to supply between 0 and 100 per cent of the plant’s capacity in block increments.
However the government have said the desal must operate at full capacity until dam levels at the lowest time of year are 65%, equivalent to up to 80% at the wettest part of the year! And we will pay a fee to AquaSure if no, or anything less than 100% of capacity is ordered. Possibly even if it is operating at full capacity, we aren’t being given any of these details.
The project includes innovative features such as a secure underground power supply;
Another EES advantage for the region, i.e. having our ‘at capacity’ grid infrastructure improved, being reneged on with power being delivered to the plant only, a commitment to undertake renewable energy projects to offset the plant’s energy use;
Thus tying up a huge chunk of renewables to cover new and unnecessary energy consumption, rather than using renewables to actually offset existing emissions to allow a reduction in overall emissions, and a chance at a safe climate future, and delivering benefits to the local community, including a new broadband fibre optic cable will this be the next promise (like upgrading our power infrastructure) to be reneged on? AquaSure employees are telling us the broadband cable to be laid is just to service sensor, valve actuation, etc, of the pipe and pumping infrastructure, and not to be available for communities along the pipe route. and a secure
unsustainable local water supply.
While via 8000 litres of effluent discharge, disruptive underwater noise and 30 tonnes per day of killed sealife contributing to an environmental marine tragedy; shameful while sustainable and cheaper alternatives are not being fulfilled.
Thank you for writing to the Premier to express your interest in Victoria’s water supplies.
Yours sincerely,
XXXX
Here is an example of a Government letter and our response:
DESALINATION PROJECT
Thank you for your letter of XX XXXXX 2009 to the Premier regarding the Wonthaggi desalination plant. I am responding on the Premier’s behalf.
Victoria has a long history as a leader in developing innovative approaches to manage water resources.
Victoria hasn’t really sought a new source of water since the Thomson dam was proposed in the 1970’s, the Government have sat on their hands despite many, many years of warnings and continue to lag in the development of aquifer storage / recovery, purified recycled water and incentives for rainwater tanks and continue to waste 30 Gl per annum by allowing logging in our catchments.
For example, Victoria was the first jurisdiction in Australia to unbundle our water entitlements – which allows them to be bought and sold independently of land - enabling them to be traded more freely and to support farmers to manage their future more flexibly.
I’m not sure this is a good thing, water available to the highest bidder and in unregulated? quantities!
In keeping with this history of innovation, in 2007, the Victorian Government released Our Water Our Future: The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan – to secure water supplies for a growing population and economy in the face of drought and to add to climate change. Innovative approaches such as water recycling and conservation are a small important components of this plan.
And these options are likely to be further sidelined due to the excessive size of the desalination plant
For example, the Water Plan includes an upgrade of Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide more than 100 billion litres of Class A recycled water a year from 2012.
And then pumping the majority out to sea (more than 60% of it for decades to come).
The Government is investigating potential uses for this water including watering parks and gardens, irrigation projects and third-pipe systems in new housing estates.
But don’t have the foresight to allow the obvious and ultimate sustainable option; further treatment of the Class A water to purified recycled water to allow it to be safely used as drinking water via our reservoirs, or via Aquifer Storage / Recovery.
Investigations are currently underway to identify projects which are both cost effective and have significant community benefits.
Assistance is also being provided through the Smart Water Fund to encourage industry to develop innovative solutions to recycle water. For example, the Smart Water Fund has provided funding to the Melbourne Aquarium to recycle up to 20,000 litres (this is just the quantity of a single household water tank) of water per week, through a combination of rooftop rainwater collection, Melbourne Aquarium only have a tiny 5000 litre tank!, and why aren’t tanks being retrofitted as mandatory to all public buildings?
desalination and reclaimed water from freshwater displays.(what are the economics of doing this for such a small return, this ain’t going to solve Melbourne’s water sustainability)
As a result of Government investment in water recycling since 1999, Melbourne now uses more recycled water than any other Australian city.(but still at a level to be very ashamed of)
In 2007/08, Melbourne used 66.7 billion litres of recycled water – almost three times the amount used by the next closest Australian city.
And nearly half this is completely bogus use ‘on site’ at treatment plants, flushing pipes, etc. The rest is largely low grade agricultural use. South East QLD and Adelaide are way ahead.
The Government is also encouraging business and industry to reduce water use through a range of targeted programs, including the WaterMAP program, which requires large water users to develop a water savings plan,which the government doesn’t enforce, or penalise if targets not met and the provision of grants to innovative water saving projects through the Smart Water Fund. With this assistance, Melbourne’s business and industry have reduced their water use by 38 per cent compared with the 1990s.
They did this largely off their own bat early and there has been very little improvement over recent years with the ‘Smart Water’ Fund and other ‘initiatives’
As you can see, the Government has adopted a range of innovative approaches to secure Victoria’s water supplies. However, saving and recycling water is not enough and Victoria needs to increase its water supplies. This is why the Victorian Government committed to building a 150 GL desalination plant at Wonthaggi.
Ignoring the economic and environmental benefits available from the alternative augmentation options, and in fact excluding them by the obscene scale of desalination chosen.
The desalination plant is being delivered as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) under the Government’s Partnerships Victoria framework. The Partnerships Victoria framework requires that bids for the desalination plant project be tested against the Government’s benchmark, the Public Sector Comparator (PSC).
An instrument that is not transparent to public scrutiny and just a tool to justify poor government decision making, see: http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2009/07/08/1246732378094.html
It enables the Government to test whether a private investment proposal offers value for money in comparison with the most efficient form of public procurement. The PSC underscores the Victorian Government’s commitment to only use PPPs if they represent good value for money and are in the public interest.
Why can’t we see the figures then? The State Government refuse to release the business case for abandoned use of recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant. They haven’t even done a business case for the desalination plant. The public’s confidence in it’s government is seriously diminished by this kind of behaviour.
Desalinated water will be delivered from the private sector to the State Government owned water authorities who will deliver this water to households. The Government will own the water, thus the public interest and ownership of water is protected.
But the government has given this consortium guarantees to purchase their water ahead of cheaper options, and refuses to disclose the contracts around its supply (even after saying that the contracts would be made available after signing).
The AquaSure consortium has been awarded the contract to build the $3.5 billion
$4.8 billion at least, as admitted by AquaSure chairman on ABC’s Stateline program 31st July 2009. Click here to see a short segment. desalination plant which will result in as many as 1,700 direct new jobs.
Far fewer jobs than would have been secured by cheaper sustainable alternatives. And they would have been long term ongoing jobs where the desal plant will only have about 50 ongoing jobs long term.
The delivery of this project will provide a new drinking water supply that is not rainfall dependent.
Recycling and efficiency measures are also rainfall independant, and there is so much totally untapped stormwater that this argument becomes a bit pale.
Once in operation the plant will provide 150 billion litres of water each year to Melbourne and regional Victoria.
Which regions? South Gippsland Water doesn’t need it, having a water security plan in place to 2050 without desalination.
The project represents value for money for water users,
Not at five or more times current water price as would appear to be the case from the price tag ($4.8+billion) with AquaSure able to secure finance for the project in a challenging economic climate.
Only with the State (us) taking a substantial chunk of the risk. What was that about PPP’s allowing the private sector to bear the risk?
The project will have the flexibility to supply between 0 and 100 per cent of the plant’s capacity in block increments.
However the government have said the desal must operate at full capacity until dam levels at the lowest time of year are 65%, equivalent to up to 80% at the wettest part of the year! And we will pay a fee to AquaSure if no, or anything less than 100% of capacity is ordered. Possibly even if it is operating at full capacity, we aren’t being given any of these details.
The project includes innovative features such as a secure underground power supply;
Another EES advantage for the region, i.e. having our ‘at capacity’ grid infrastructure improved, being reneged on with power being delivered to the plant only, a commitment to undertake renewable energy projects to offset the plant’s energy use;
Thus tying up a huge chunk of renewables to cover new and unnecessary energy consumption, rather than using renewables to actually offset existing emissions to allow a reduction in overall emissions, and a chance at a safe climate future, and delivering benefits to the local community, including a new broadband fibre optic cable will this be the next promise (like upgrading our power infrastructure) to be reneged on? AquaSure employees are telling us the broadband cable to be laid is just to service sensor, valve actuation, etc, of the pipe and pumping infrastructure, and not to be available for communities along the pipe route. and a secure
unsustainable local water supply.
While via 8000 litres of effluent discharge, disruptive underwater noise and 30 tonnes per day of killed sealife contributing to an environmental marine tragedy; shameful while sustainable and cheaper alternatives are not being fulfilled.
Thank you for writing to the Premier to express your interest in Victoria’s water supplies.
Yours sincerely,
XXXX
WATERSHED VICTORIA - New Group
YOUR WATER YOUR SAY ACTION GROUP INC. - FUTURE FOCUS.
As a result of the inability or unwillingness of the Federal or State Governments - Peter Garrett & Tim Holding respectively - to make a decision as to whether to pursue YWYS for court costs or not, YWYS is now unable to continue to "trade" or campaign against the desalination plant proposed for the Bass Coast.
As an incorporated group we have legal obligations under the Corporations Act and as a result of having potential debts that we cannot service we need to ensure that we are not 'trading whilst insolvent'. If we were then there is a chance the individual directors or committee or management could be held liable and obviously this is not a course of action that we can sanction.
YWYS will continue to exist up until a time when the court cost issue is resolved either through a negotiated settlement with the Governments or through a winding up if the Governments decide to pursue costs that we do not have. YWYS can continue to campaign against the court cost issue and we believe this is a very important issue that has implications for all community groups across Victoria. We will not be challenging the cost order through legal channels as we believe this would be very unlikely to succeed so we will pursue this issue through the court of public opinion.
We are continuing to work through our lawyers - Arnold Bloch & Leibler - to try to resolve the issue so it is hoped I can update everyone on a successful outcome at some point in time but there is no guarantee.
As a result of this the community decided last week to start a new community group to continue to fight the campaign and they are:
WATERSHED VICTORIA.
I believe they are putting together a new website which might be up and running urgently.
A dedicated and enthusiastic team is working hard to get the group up and running and as a result your support is needed to continue this campaign. Due to privacy issues it is necessary for YWYS subscribers to resubscribe to the new group so PLEASE send your contact details to dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com who will be setting up the database etc. for the new group.
YWYS and I thank you for your support and urge everyone to email dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com to continue to support the campaign as without your support the Government will build whatever monstrosity, at whatever cost and sustainable water options for Melbourne's water supply will be discarded to the waste bin.
Kind regards
Andrea Bolch
President
Your Water Your Say Action Group Inc.
abolch@austarnet.com.au
As a result of the inability or unwillingness of the Federal or State Governments - Peter Garrett & Tim Holding respectively - to make a decision as to whether to pursue YWYS for court costs or not, YWYS is now unable to continue to "trade" or campaign against the desalination plant proposed for the Bass Coast.
As an incorporated group we have legal obligations under the Corporations Act and as a result of having potential debts that we cannot service we need to ensure that we are not 'trading whilst insolvent'. If we were then there is a chance the individual directors or committee or management could be held liable and obviously this is not a course of action that we can sanction.
YWYS will continue to exist up until a time when the court cost issue is resolved either through a negotiated settlement with the Governments or through a winding up if the Governments decide to pursue costs that we do not have. YWYS can continue to campaign against the court cost issue and we believe this is a very important issue that has implications for all community groups across Victoria. We will not be challenging the cost order through legal channels as we believe this would be very unlikely to succeed so we will pursue this issue through the court of public opinion.
We are continuing to work through our lawyers - Arnold Bloch & Leibler - to try to resolve the issue so it is hoped I can update everyone on a successful outcome at some point in time but there is no guarantee.
As a result of this the community decided last week to start a new community group to continue to fight the campaign and they are:
WATERSHED VICTORIA.
I believe they are putting together a new website which might be up and running urgently.
A dedicated and enthusiastic team is working hard to get the group up and running and as a result your support is needed to continue this campaign. Due to privacy issues it is necessary for YWYS subscribers to resubscribe to the new group so PLEASE send your contact details to dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com who will be setting up the database etc. for the new group.
YWYS and I thank you for your support and urge everyone to email dominic.gilligan@bigpond.com to continue to support the campaign as without your support the Government will build whatever monstrosity, at whatever cost and sustainable water options for Melbourne's water supply will be discarded to the waste bin.
Kind regards
Andrea Bolch
President
Your Water Your Say Action Group Inc.
abolch@austarnet.com.au
Brumby's water plan savaged.
Written by: MELISSA FYFE
The Age.
March 28, 2010
JOHN Brumby's multibillion-dollar plan to save water in northern Victoria and boost Melbourne's supply has been rubbished by Australia's top economists and water experts.
They say that the project is based on ''spurious'' claims and will result in the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money.
The government's controversial Foodbowl Modernisation Project is already pushing water bills higher and will drain a further $1.6 billion from state and federal coffers. But experts say taxpayers are forking out four times the money necessary to provide more water for the city and the environment.
''At the end of the day we will all pay because we will have fewer hospitals and fewer schools and a whole heap of irrigation infrastructure that will sit there like a giant white elephant,'' said La Trobe University water expert Professor Lin Crase.
Alistair Watson, one of Australia's most respected agricultural experts, said fellow economists were now calling the project ''the northern dog''.
The project, personally championed by Mr Brumby since he was treasurer as a historic opportunity to deliver more water for regional Victoria, Melbourne and the environment, will modernise the Goulburn-Murray's irrigation infrastructure by replacing old meters and lining channels.
The $1 billion first stage, expected to be finished by 2014, will deliver 225 billion litres in ''saved'' water, divided equally between irrigators, Melbourne and the environment. Melbourne's 75 billion litres will come down the already-completed $750 million north-south pipeline, which, since last month, has delivered water to the city from older rural water-saving projects and environmental reserves. Stage two, costing another $1 billion, will be funded by Commonwealth taxpayers, with 100 billion litres of water savings going to the environment and 100 billion litres to irrigators.
The damning criticism of the project comes as a government source familiar with the business case for stage two told The Sunday Age that the Victorian government had exaggerated how much more productive farmers will be under a better irrigation system, and that the productivity figures were ''not credible''.
The business case for stage two is now before the federal government, which is assessing the taxpayer value of the project. It is due to make a decision soon. The source, who declined to be named, described the project as a ''scandalous waste of billions of dollars''.
The project began in 2007 but it was only last month that the government released its business case for the first stage. It said that, over the next 20 years, the project's benefits will be twice as valuable as its $1 billion price tag. The Sunday Age asked a panel of 10 top public policy economists, water experts and agricultural economists to assess the claim.
The experts included some of the nation's leading economists, such as the University of Melbourne's John Freebairn, who said the money should be spent on other regional projects, and the University of Queensland's John Quiggin, who said the project did not ''stack up'' for the taxpayer and political pressure against going into the water market had forced the Victorian government to find ''high-cost solutions'' to Melbourne's water crisis.
The experts also included Oliver Gyles, a foodbowl irrigator who worked for the Victorian government as a senior economist for 14 years. He said the water savings did not appear possible.
The government declined to suggest an independent expert who would publicly back the project.
With the exception of one, the experts slammed the project, broadly echoing the Productivity Commission's December draft report into recovering water in the Murray-Darling basin.
This report found that the Foodbowl Modernisation Project ''seems to be at odds with due diligence requirements'' because taxpayers would be paying $10,000 for every million litres for Melbourne and the environment, instead of $2500 that federal Water Minister Penny Wong is paying for water from farmers who are willing to sell. This compares to $3300 per million litres for widespread retrofitting of rainwater tanks and up to $3230 for desalination water.
The experts said a cheaper solution to Melbourne's water crisis would be to forget expensive irrigation upgrades and instead buy the water from willing farmers in the north - although this is politically controversial - and deliver it through the north-south pipeline. They also say the economics of the pipeline will make little sense when less expensive desalination plant water comes online.
One of the economists, Professor Quentin Grafton, director of the Australian National University's Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, raised concerns about the business case. He said the bottom-line figures presented could not be properly evaluated, that they must be taken on ''trust''.
Monash University economist Glyn Wittwer, who was contracted by government consultants to model the economic benefit of the construction and maintenance phase in stage one, said the business case was confusing. He had estimated the project's construction value to be worth an extra $381 million to the Victorian economy to 2020, but the business case, he said, had inexplicably added another $624 million.
The panel of experts also attacked Mr Brumby's claim that the project is about ''creating new water'' and that large amounts of water are now ''lost''. Mr Brumby has often compared the irrigation district to a 44-gallon drum. ''The top half of it is punched full of holes; every time you fill it, it'll go empty, it'll go down to half-full, and that's exactly the position in the Goulburn-Murray system.''
But the experts said there were few real ''losses'' in over-allocated districts, such as Victoria's Murray basin areas.
Water flows off farms into drains, which are used by other farmers, or water leaks into soil through channels then travels underground in aquifers and is pumped out by farmers downstream or used by the river and wetlands as environmental flows.
Professor Crase described the government's claim of creating ''new'' water as ''spurious in the extreme''. ''When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
Visiting fellow at the Australian National University, Donna Brennan, said: ''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river.''
The experts added that taxpayers should not be subsidising irrigation infrastructure - that if it was a good investment, irrigators would have committed the money themselves (they are contributing $100 million of the $2 billion cost).
The University of Adelaide's Professor Mike Young said it was likely that some Victorian irrigation districts that missed out on the government subsidy would be sent to the wall.
Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding refused to answer questions from The Sunday Age, including where the water losses from inefficient irrigation were currently going and whether the government compared the foodbowl project to the cost of other options for boosting Melbourne's water supplies.
In a statement, Mr Holding said: "It is obvious that if the Victorian government just wanted water for Melbourne or for the environment we could have just bought it off irrigators and let farming die in Victoria.
''Superficially, this may have looked like cheap water, but in truth it would have come at a catastrophic cost. I believe the people of Melbourne and all Victorian taxpayers are proud to help fund a project that will secure our foodbowl, boost exports and create jobs in the decades ahead."
Respected water expert John Langford, an engineer from the universities of Melbourne and Monash, was positive about the project because he said it provided better service delivery for irrigators. The key benefit, he said, was not water savings. Asked why Victorian taxpayers and higher water bills should pay for better service for irrigators, Professor Langford agreed Melburnians were paying a premium for the annual 75 billion litres in water savings coming down the north-south pipeline. But the government probably thought it was a good insurance policy for the city while the desalination plant was finished, he said.
Shepparton irrigator and businessman John Corboy defended the use of taxpayers' money on irrigation upgrades - likening it to government support for the car industry or freeway infrastructure for cities. He said the Goulburn-Murray irrigation community could not pay for its own infrastructure because of the long drought, low food prices, free trade and global market pressures.
Ask the experts: Is the foodbowl modernisation project good value for taxpayers?
PROFESSOR JOHN FREEBAIRN University of Melbourne economist, 35 years' experience
''The government could have bought water for the environment and Melbourne for a third of the cost. They then would have had more money to spend on potentially more productive projects in rural Victoria such as expanding tourism, better roads, better hospitals, better education.''
DR ALISTAIR WATSON Senior agricultural consultant
''Economists call the project the northern dog. The stuff about food security is an absolute furphy.''
PROFESSOR QUENTIN GRAFTON Director, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Australian National University
''The business case just does not provide the information to make a proper evaluation. We have to accept the benefits and costs of the project on trust.''
PROFESSOR LIN CRASE La Trobe University professor of applied economics, specialising in water policy
''The government's claim that it is creating 'new' water is spurious in the extreme. When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
PROFESSOR MIKE YOUNG Executive director of the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute
''This is gold-plating irrigation systems which will result in other irrigation systems in Victoria shutting down. If you are an irrigator who benefits from this you are very lucky - you are getting a huge [taxpayer] subsidy and a tremendous competitive advantage. But it is a huge loss to all other people in Australia because it is such an expensive way to solve a problem.''
PROFESSOR JOHN QUIGGIN University of Queensland economist
''The amount that is being paid by the taxpayer to get water for Melbourne is very high and in that sense this does not stack up.''
PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash x''The key benefit is not water savings, it is improving the level of service to irrigators … it is a good deal for the irrigators … we should end up with a more productive irrigation industry than we've got now.''
DR GLYN WITTWER Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash University
''When the desalination plant becomes operational, there will be zero economic gains from the Sugarloaf (north-south) pipeline."
PROFESSOR DONNA BRENNAN ''Economist, visiting fellow at the Australian National University
''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water that was 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river. As for the cost-benefit analysis, the results are very suspicious.''
OLIVER GYLES Foodbowl irrigator, worked as a senior economist with the Victorian government for 14 years
''I've looked at the veracity of the foodbowl project's claims to achieve real water savings … and I can't see that there will be any significant real savings.''
Extra water for Melbourne - how much do the options cost? (Cost per million litres)
Savings from foodbowl project $10,000
Buying water from willing farmers $2500
Rainwater tanks $3300
Stormwater recycling from streams $4500 up to $32,306
Desalination Recycled water into the drinking system about $1500
SOURCES: 1, 2: PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION 3: MELBOURNE WATER AND UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE PILOT PROGRAM, 2009 4: AVERAGE OF OPTIONS ASSESSED IN 2007 MELBOURNE WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY 5: RODERICK CAMPBELL, CONSULTING ECONOMIST 6: BASED ON SINGAPORE MODEL, VIA PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD
The Age.
March 28, 2010
JOHN Brumby's multibillion-dollar plan to save water in northern Victoria and boost Melbourne's supply has been rubbished by Australia's top economists and water experts.
They say that the project is based on ''spurious'' claims and will result in the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money.
The government's controversial Foodbowl Modernisation Project is already pushing water bills higher and will drain a further $1.6 billion from state and federal coffers. But experts say taxpayers are forking out four times the money necessary to provide more water for the city and the environment.
''At the end of the day we will all pay because we will have fewer hospitals and fewer schools and a whole heap of irrigation infrastructure that will sit there like a giant white elephant,'' said La Trobe University water expert Professor Lin Crase.
Alistair Watson, one of Australia's most respected agricultural experts, said fellow economists were now calling the project ''the northern dog''.
The project, personally championed by Mr Brumby since he was treasurer as a historic opportunity to deliver more water for regional Victoria, Melbourne and the environment, will modernise the Goulburn-Murray's irrigation infrastructure by replacing old meters and lining channels.
The $1 billion first stage, expected to be finished by 2014, will deliver 225 billion litres in ''saved'' water, divided equally between irrigators, Melbourne and the environment. Melbourne's 75 billion litres will come down the already-completed $750 million north-south pipeline, which, since last month, has delivered water to the city from older rural water-saving projects and environmental reserves. Stage two, costing another $1 billion, will be funded by Commonwealth taxpayers, with 100 billion litres of water savings going to the environment and 100 billion litres to irrigators.
The damning criticism of the project comes as a government source familiar with the business case for stage two told The Sunday Age that the Victorian government had exaggerated how much more productive farmers will be under a better irrigation system, and that the productivity figures were ''not credible''.
The business case for stage two is now before the federal government, which is assessing the taxpayer value of the project. It is due to make a decision soon. The source, who declined to be named, described the project as a ''scandalous waste of billions of dollars''.
The project began in 2007 but it was only last month that the government released its business case for the first stage. It said that, over the next 20 years, the project's benefits will be twice as valuable as its $1 billion price tag. The Sunday Age asked a panel of 10 top public policy economists, water experts and agricultural economists to assess the claim.
The experts included some of the nation's leading economists, such as the University of Melbourne's John Freebairn, who said the money should be spent on other regional projects, and the University of Queensland's John Quiggin, who said the project did not ''stack up'' for the taxpayer and political pressure against going into the water market had forced the Victorian government to find ''high-cost solutions'' to Melbourne's water crisis.
The experts also included Oliver Gyles, a foodbowl irrigator who worked for the Victorian government as a senior economist for 14 years. He said the water savings did not appear possible.
The government declined to suggest an independent expert who would publicly back the project.
With the exception of one, the experts slammed the project, broadly echoing the Productivity Commission's December draft report into recovering water in the Murray-Darling basin.
This report found that the Foodbowl Modernisation Project ''seems to be at odds with due diligence requirements'' because taxpayers would be paying $10,000 for every million litres for Melbourne and the environment, instead of $2500 that federal Water Minister Penny Wong is paying for water from farmers who are willing to sell. This compares to $3300 per million litres for widespread retrofitting of rainwater tanks and up to $3230 for desalination water.
The experts said a cheaper solution to Melbourne's water crisis would be to forget expensive irrigation upgrades and instead buy the water from willing farmers in the north - although this is politically controversial - and deliver it through the north-south pipeline. They also say the economics of the pipeline will make little sense when less expensive desalination plant water comes online.
One of the economists, Professor Quentin Grafton, director of the Australian National University's Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, raised concerns about the business case. He said the bottom-line figures presented could not be properly evaluated, that they must be taken on ''trust''.
Monash University economist Glyn Wittwer, who was contracted by government consultants to model the economic benefit of the construction and maintenance phase in stage one, said the business case was confusing. He had estimated the project's construction value to be worth an extra $381 million to the Victorian economy to 2020, but the business case, he said, had inexplicably added another $624 million.
The panel of experts also attacked Mr Brumby's claim that the project is about ''creating new water'' and that large amounts of water are now ''lost''. Mr Brumby has often compared the irrigation district to a 44-gallon drum. ''The top half of it is punched full of holes; every time you fill it, it'll go empty, it'll go down to half-full, and that's exactly the position in the Goulburn-Murray system.''
But the experts said there were few real ''losses'' in over-allocated districts, such as Victoria's Murray basin areas.
Water flows off farms into drains, which are used by other farmers, or water leaks into soil through channels then travels underground in aquifers and is pumped out by farmers downstream or used by the river and wetlands as environmental flows.
Professor Crase described the government's claim of creating ''new'' water as ''spurious in the extreme''. ''When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
Visiting fellow at the Australian National University, Donna Brennan, said: ''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river.''
The experts added that taxpayers should not be subsidising irrigation infrastructure - that if it was a good investment, irrigators would have committed the money themselves (they are contributing $100 million of the $2 billion cost).
The University of Adelaide's Professor Mike Young said it was likely that some Victorian irrigation districts that missed out on the government subsidy would be sent to the wall.
Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding refused to answer questions from The Sunday Age, including where the water losses from inefficient irrigation were currently going and whether the government compared the foodbowl project to the cost of other options for boosting Melbourne's water supplies.
In a statement, Mr Holding said: "It is obvious that if the Victorian government just wanted water for Melbourne or for the environment we could have just bought it off irrigators and let farming die in Victoria.
''Superficially, this may have looked like cheap water, but in truth it would have come at a catastrophic cost. I believe the people of Melbourne and all Victorian taxpayers are proud to help fund a project that will secure our foodbowl, boost exports and create jobs in the decades ahead."
Respected water expert John Langford, an engineer from the universities of Melbourne and Monash, was positive about the project because he said it provided better service delivery for irrigators. The key benefit, he said, was not water savings. Asked why Victorian taxpayers and higher water bills should pay for better service for irrigators, Professor Langford agreed Melburnians were paying a premium for the annual 75 billion litres in water savings coming down the north-south pipeline. But the government probably thought it was a good insurance policy for the city while the desalination plant was finished, he said.
Shepparton irrigator and businessman John Corboy defended the use of taxpayers' money on irrigation upgrades - likening it to government support for the car industry or freeway infrastructure for cities. He said the Goulburn-Murray irrigation community could not pay for its own infrastructure because of the long drought, low food prices, free trade and global market pressures.
Ask the experts: Is the foodbowl modernisation project good value for taxpayers?
PROFESSOR JOHN FREEBAIRN University of Melbourne economist, 35 years' experience
''The government could have bought water for the environment and Melbourne for a third of the cost. They then would have had more money to spend on potentially more productive projects in rural Victoria such as expanding tourism, better roads, better hospitals, better education.''
DR ALISTAIR WATSON Senior agricultural consultant
''Economists call the project the northern dog. The stuff about food security is an absolute furphy.''
PROFESSOR QUENTIN GRAFTON Director, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Australian National University
''The business case just does not provide the information to make a proper evaluation. We have to accept the benefits and costs of the project on trust.''
PROFESSOR LIN CRASE La Trobe University professor of applied economics, specialising in water policy
''The government's claim that it is creating 'new' water is spurious in the extreme. When water is purportedly 'lost' in the irrigation district, it does not go to Mars. It is not lost at all, it has just gone somewhere else.''
PROFESSOR MIKE YOUNG Executive director of the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute
''This is gold-plating irrigation systems which will result in other irrigation systems in Victoria shutting down. If you are an irrigator who benefits from this you are very lucky - you are getting a huge [taxpayer] subsidy and a tremendous competitive advantage. But it is a huge loss to all other people in Australia because it is such an expensive way to solve a problem.''
PROFESSOR JOHN QUIGGIN University of Queensland economist
''The amount that is being paid by the taxpayer to get water for Melbourne is very high and in that sense this does not stack up.''
PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash x''The key benefit is not water savings, it is improving the level of service to irrigators … it is a good deal for the irrigators … we should end up with a more productive irrigation industry than we've got now.''
DR GLYN WITTWER Director of Uniwater, a joint initiative of the University of Melbourne and Monash University
''When the desalination plant becomes operational, there will be zero economic gains from the Sugarloaf (north-south) pipeline."
PROFESSOR DONNA BRENNAN ''Economist, visiting fellow at the Australian National University
''The benefits to the environment would need to be seriously questioned. Some of the water that was 'leaking' was actually returning to the system and ending up further down the river. As for the cost-benefit analysis, the results are very suspicious.''
OLIVER GYLES Foodbowl irrigator, worked as a senior economist with the Victorian government for 14 years
''I've looked at the veracity of the foodbowl project's claims to achieve real water savings … and I can't see that there will be any significant real savings.''
Extra water for Melbourne - how much do the options cost? (Cost per million litres)
Savings from foodbowl project $10,000
Buying water from willing farmers $2500
Rainwater tanks $3300
Stormwater recycling from streams $4500 up to $32,306
Desalination Recycled water into the drinking system about $1500
SOURCES: 1, 2: PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION 3: MELBOURNE WATER AND UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE PILOT PROGRAM, 2009 4: AVERAGE OF OPTIONS ASSESSED IN 2007 MELBOURNE WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY 5: RODERICK CAMPBELL, CONSULTING ECONOMIST 6: BASED ON SINGAPORE MODEL, VIA PROFESSOR JOHN LANGFORD
Friday, March 26, 2010
Basscoast Rental Crisis 2010_0001.wmv
Video showing an update on the housing crisis being experianced at the moment.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
$150m desal pay bonanza
The Age
Written by: BEN SCHNEIDERS AND ROYCE MILLAR
March 22, 2010
THE developer of Victoria's controversial desalination plant will pay workers as
much as $150 million above industry standards in its bid to meet the deadline for
water to flow from the plant by 2011.
Extravagant pay and conditions for the plant's 1700 building workers - including a
$700 weekly allowance for living away from home - have sparked industry concerns
that the labour deals set a precedent that will blow out costs for infrastructure projects.
Under the deals, a labourer will be paid about 25 per cent above the standard and,
for a 56-hour week, a carpenter will earn more than $200,000 in wages and benefits,
nearly 30 per cent over the standard.
Some workers will be paid over 40 per cent more than their equivalents on the
Sydney desalination project.
A spokesman for Water Minister Tim Holding said yesterday: "Victorian taxpayers
will not pay one extra cent as a result of agreements for workers' pay and conditions
on the desalination project because we agreed to a fixed-price contract."
The Aquasure consortium, including French company Degremont and builder Thiess,
last year won the right to build and operate the plant over the BassWater group,
which included international water giant Veolia and Australian builder John Holland.
A senior government insider close to the project confirmed the state was well
aware that its tight deadline of December next year would come at a cost.
The source said Victoria's diminishing water supplies had led to a "desperate"
need for the plant to be finished quickly. "They [bidders] were told: 'You're
meeting this deadline.' "
But with improved rainfall in recent months, the government is finding the premium
paid for urgent desalination less palatable than when drought was a more pressing
issue.
Industry and government sources told The Age that failure to meet the deadline
would cost the consortium at least $2 million a day in lost revenue.
Aquasure sources said that while the labour costs were high, the severe penalties
for missing the deadline were of more concern. "I'm sure Thiess were no more
generous than they felt they had to be to achieve the flexibility they needed to
complete a massive project in a very short space of time."
An industry analysis of the agreement between Aquasure and five unions, obtained by
The Age, reveals total labour costs will be at least $100 million to $150 million above
the industry standard, based on the estimated 6 million labour hours required to
complete the plant.
The favourable conditions at Wonthaggi include an agreement for unions to be
consulted on contractors, broader right of entry for union officials and weaker
rules on industrial action.
Inquiries by The Age reveal that desalination plants in Queensland and New South
Wales were developed under the building industry's "civil" classification. By contrast,
a senior union source said the Wonthaggi plant was classified as a "mixed metals" or
metal construction rate, ensuring higher pay. He said the desalination project should
be measured against metal construction, not civil building projects.
Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch warned that
the "exorbitant" pay rates would set an artificially high bar for the rest of the industry.
"This job should have been completed at similar rates of pay as the Eastlink project,
was delivered ahead of time and on budget," he said.
‘‘Instead, we’re seeing taxpayers again held to ransom by militant unions and their
unreasonable demands.’’
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Bill Oliver said the
deal set a high standard in the industry - but only for very large infrastructure projects.
Mr Oliver said unions were mindful of completing the project on time without industrial
strife. ‘‘The unions are concerned that it is important to the people of Victoria.’’
The major building companies in both short-listed bids - Thiess and John Holland -
are owned by Leighton Holdings.
Industry sources said the imperative for industrial peace suited Aquasure and
builder Thiess in particular.
‘‘Thiess’s traditional approach on such projects is, ‘How much do the bastards [unions]
want? Give them what they want and remove them as an issue,’ ’’ he said.
But John Holland, involved at the time of the bid process in a bitter dispute
over the widening of the West Gate Bridge, is renowned for taking a more aggressive
approach to industrial relations.
Senior executives at Thiess Degremont declined to be interviewed for this story
or to provide a written statement answering questions.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/150m-desal-pay-bonanza-20100321-qo2p.html
Written by: BEN SCHNEIDERS AND ROYCE MILLAR
March 22, 2010
THE developer of Victoria's controversial desalination plant will pay workers as
much as $150 million above industry standards in its bid to meet the deadline for
water to flow from the plant by 2011.
Extravagant pay and conditions for the plant's 1700 building workers - including a
$700 weekly allowance for living away from home - have sparked industry concerns
that the labour deals set a precedent that will blow out costs for infrastructure projects.
Under the deals, a labourer will be paid about 25 per cent above the standard and,
for a 56-hour week, a carpenter will earn more than $200,000 in wages and benefits,
nearly 30 per cent over the standard.
Some workers will be paid over 40 per cent more than their equivalents on the
Sydney desalination project.
A spokesman for Water Minister Tim Holding said yesterday: "Victorian taxpayers
will not pay one extra cent as a result of agreements for workers' pay and conditions
on the desalination project because we agreed to a fixed-price contract."
The Aquasure consortium, including French company Degremont and builder Thiess,
last year won the right to build and operate the plant over the BassWater group,
which included international water giant Veolia and Australian builder John Holland.
A senior government insider close to the project confirmed the state was well
aware that its tight deadline of December next year would come at a cost.
The source said Victoria's diminishing water supplies had led to a "desperate"
need for the plant to be finished quickly. "They [bidders] were told: 'You're
meeting this deadline.' "
But with improved rainfall in recent months, the government is finding the premium
paid for urgent desalination less palatable than when drought was a more pressing
issue.
Industry and government sources told The Age that failure to meet the deadline
would cost the consortium at least $2 million a day in lost revenue.
Aquasure sources said that while the labour costs were high, the severe penalties
for missing the deadline were of more concern. "I'm sure Thiess were no more
generous than they felt they had to be to achieve the flexibility they needed to
complete a massive project in a very short space of time."
An industry analysis of the agreement between Aquasure and five unions, obtained by
The Age, reveals total labour costs will be at least $100 million to $150 million above
the industry standard, based on the estimated 6 million labour hours required to
complete the plant.
The favourable conditions at Wonthaggi include an agreement for unions to be
consulted on contractors, broader right of entry for union officials and weaker
rules on industrial action.
Inquiries by The Age reveal that desalination plants in Queensland and New South
Wales were developed under the building industry's "civil" classification. By contrast,
a senior union source said the Wonthaggi plant was classified as a "mixed metals" or
metal construction rate, ensuring higher pay. He said the desalination project should
be measured against metal construction, not civil building projects.
Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch warned that
the "exorbitant" pay rates would set an artificially high bar for the rest of the industry.
"This job should have been completed at similar rates of pay as the Eastlink project,
was delivered ahead of time and on budget," he said.
‘‘Instead, we’re seeing taxpayers again held to ransom by militant unions and their
unreasonable demands.’’
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Bill Oliver said the
deal set a high standard in the industry - but only for very large infrastructure projects.
Mr Oliver said unions were mindful of completing the project on time without industrial
strife. ‘‘The unions are concerned that it is important to the people of Victoria.’’
The major building companies in both short-listed bids - Thiess and John Holland -
are owned by Leighton Holdings.
Industry sources said the imperative for industrial peace suited Aquasure and
builder Thiess in particular.
‘‘Thiess’s traditional approach on such projects is, ‘How much do the bastards [unions]
want? Give them what they want and remove them as an issue,’ ’’ he said.
But John Holland, involved at the time of the bid process in a bitter dispute
over the widening of the West Gate Bridge, is renowned for taking a more aggressive
approach to industrial relations.
Senior executives at Thiess Degremont declined to be interviewed for this story
or to provide a written statement answering questions.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/150m-desal-pay-bonanza-20100321-qo2p.html
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wynne annouces funding for Basscoast homes
There has been plans made to build low cost housing in the basscoast.
The catch is they wont be built for two years, so where do those being
forced from their homes go until then?
The council didnt want an accomodation camp built beside the desal plant
because they didnt want wonthaggi to look like a crappy town !
Now, there is no where to go and no emergency housing, so many will be living
in their cars or on the streets, how will that make the basscoast look, Mr Mayor?
The catch is they wont be built for two years, so where do those being
forced from their homes go until then?
The council didnt want an accomodation camp built beside the desal plant
because they didnt want wonthaggi to look like a crappy town !
Now, there is no where to go and no emergency housing, so many will be living
in their cars or on the streets, how will that make the basscoast look, Mr Mayor?
Melbournes water more important than people of the Basscoast
Why didn't the Brumby Government spend 3.5 billion on building
more homes in the Basscoast instead of 3.5 billion on supplying
Melbourne with water ?
more homes in the Basscoast instead of 3.5 billion on supplying
Melbourne with water ?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Why Squat? Why Not?
Are you being squeezed out by ridiculously high rents?
Tired of waiting for disinterested governments to come to your assistance?
Fed up with sleeping in parks/bus shelters/friends’ lounge room floors?
Take matters into your own hands — Go squat!
Despite government policies aimed at promoting ‘affordable’ housing, it’s clear that
the number of low-income people able to afford housing is rapidly decreasing.
The cost of private rental accommodation is increasing exponentially, pushing many
low-income earners away from the areas in which they and their friends live.
The private rental market is largely deregulated and tenancy laws afford low-income
earners little protection from the increasingly exorbitant rents demanded by landowners
and their real estate agents. It’s profit margins that count
Tired of waiting for disinterested governments to come to your assistance?
Fed up with sleeping in parks/bus shelters/friends’ lounge room floors?
Take matters into your own hands — Go squat!
Despite government policies aimed at promoting ‘affordable’ housing, it’s clear that
the number of low-income people able to afford housing is rapidly decreasing.
The cost of private rental accommodation is increasing exponentially, pushing many
low-income earners away from the areas in which they and their friends live.
The private rental market is largely deregulated and tenancy laws afford low-income
earners little protection from the increasingly exorbitant rents demanded by landowners
and their real estate agents. It’s profit margins that count
Friday, March 19, 2010
81% Increase in housing prices
Local Basscoast Real Estate Agents are the driving force behind the 81%
increases in house prices ! Who is monitoring them ?
increases in house prices ! Who is monitoring them ?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Rental Request
Looking for a property to rent for 11 days in the Basscoast
We would prefer a fully furnished home if possible, but will look at any offers
Please email us at : staceyh09@gmail.com
We would prefer a fully furnished home if possible, but will look at any offers
Please email us at : staceyh09@gmail.com
Rental List
We would like to put together a list of owners that would like to rent their properties
to those being forced from their properties due to the desal plants construction.
If you are interested please email me your details and we will put you in touch with
those that will be homeless.
Also we have tenants looking for houses and units for short term rents.
If you can help out just email me...
to those being forced from their properties due to the desal plants construction.
If you are interested please email me your details and we will put you in touch with
those that will be homeless.
Also we have tenants looking for houses and units for short term rents.
If you can help out just email me...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Evidence of the Price Rises In Basscoast
This price was the median house price in Inverloch Dec-09
$267,500
This is the median house price for Inverloch Jan-10
$486,000
This is $218,500 or 81% increase in less than
1 month!
"Clearly, this is why the locals are being
forced out of their rentals !"
forced out of their rentals !"
Cash flows for desalination dry up
Royce Millar
March 9, 2009
theage.com.au
THE project meant to secure Melbourne against water shortages is facing a crisis:
a money shortage because of the global credit squeeze.
Premier John Brumby's $3.1 billion desalination plant, the cornerstone of his plan
to drought-proof Melbourne, appears to be in trouble as major project finance
dries up around the world.
Banking sources say the project faces a funding gap of between $1 billion and
$2 billion. Some in the infrastructure industry say a mere $300 million to $500
million is available from banks for all major projects across the country.
The shortfalls confront the Brumby and Rudd governments with either finding
the money to bail out the controversial plant, along with a string of other projects
across the country, or shelving it.
For Mr Brumby, who has staked Melbourne's water, and his political, future
on desalination, the latter option is unthinkable.
Sourcing finance for big-ticket infrastructure projects is now a major dilemma
arising from the international money malaise for the private and public sectors.
Earmarked for Williamsons Beach near Wonthaggi, the desalination plant is
meant to be a public private partnership (PPP) with up-front funding from
private operators.
Two consortia, Bass Water (led by the French company Veolia) and Aquasure
(led by the French company Degremont), are jostling for the desalination contract.
A decision on the winner is scheduled for mid-year.But with final bids due this month,
sources from both groups have confirmed they have not secured the funds needed
to build Australia's biggest desalination project.
"They (the State Government) asked for it to be fully funded. As a matter of fact,
it won't be," a source said. From the opposing camp, another source said: "At this last
minute there's people running around the globe trying to get finance. Projects all over
Australia are not getting done. You can go to any bank in Australia and you ain't
going to get any money."
It is difficult to see how the State Government can pick up the tab for a desalination
plant, or even a part. Its coffers are under mounting pressure, while key revenue
such as stamp duty falls away. As of Friday Mr Brumby remained committed to a
budget surplus of at least $100 million.
Infrastructure industry sources said the commonwealth and states were now looking
at emergency plans for the Federal Government to shore up struggling PPPs across
the country.
"The commonwealth is actively looking at options," an industry source said.
As Victoria's biggest civic project, the desalination plant is likely to be among
those in need of federal support. Infrastructure industry figures are hopeful the
Federal Government will follow a British plan to establish a special bank to help
finance struggling PPPs.
But after doling out tens of billions of dollars to pump-prime the economy, the
Federal Government is under pressure to tighten its own belt.While the Government
has vowed to press ahead with big infrastructure spending, its razor gang is looking
for cuts, rather than new projects.
It seems unlikely any federal support for the desalination plant will come from the
already cashstrapped Building Australia fund, overseen by businessman Rod Eddington.
The fund has found itself with less money than first hoped — just $12.6 billion,
rather the $20 billion anticipated in the May budget.
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia executive director Brendan Lyon said he
would not be surprised if Canberra came to the aid of Victoria's desalination plant,
as well as other PPPs.
"All governments are talking to one another about the challenges of debt markets
and the challenges facing the infrastructure sector from the global financial crisis."
Since its surprise announcement in 2007, the desalination plant has become
increasingly central to the government's water strategy, due to the worsening
drought and the effect of bushfires on Melbourne's already stretched water reserves.
State Government figures warned the bidders may be trying to use the media to
put pressure on the Government in the tough closing negotiations.
Government spokesman Matt Nurse said the Government could not comment on
how the desalination project would be financed."The project to build Australia's
largest desalination plant is on track, however as there is a competitive bidding
process under way we are unable to comment on the bids from the two shortlisted
consortia," he said.
Got a tip?
Email investigations@theage.com.au
March 9, 2009
theage.com.au
THE project meant to secure Melbourne against water shortages is facing a crisis:
a money shortage because of the global credit squeeze.
Premier John Brumby's $3.1 billion desalination plant, the cornerstone of his plan
to drought-proof Melbourne, appears to be in trouble as major project finance
dries up around the world.
Banking sources say the project faces a funding gap of between $1 billion and
$2 billion. Some in the infrastructure industry say a mere $300 million to $500
million is available from banks for all major projects across the country.
The shortfalls confront the Brumby and Rudd governments with either finding
the money to bail out the controversial plant, along with a string of other projects
across the country, or shelving it.
For Mr Brumby, who has staked Melbourne's water, and his political, future
on desalination, the latter option is unthinkable.
Sourcing finance for big-ticket infrastructure projects is now a major dilemma
arising from the international money malaise for the private and public sectors.
Earmarked for Williamsons Beach near Wonthaggi, the desalination plant is
meant to be a public private partnership (PPP) with up-front funding from
private operators.
Two consortia, Bass Water (led by the French company Veolia) and Aquasure
(led by the French company Degremont), are jostling for the desalination contract.
A decision on the winner is scheduled for mid-year.But with final bids due this month,
sources from both groups have confirmed they have not secured the funds needed
to build Australia's biggest desalination project.
"They (the State Government) asked for it to be fully funded. As a matter of fact,
it won't be," a source said. From the opposing camp, another source said: "At this last
minute there's people running around the globe trying to get finance. Projects all over
Australia are not getting done. You can go to any bank in Australia and you ain't
going to get any money."
It is difficult to see how the State Government can pick up the tab for a desalination
plant, or even a part. Its coffers are under mounting pressure, while key revenue
such as stamp duty falls away. As of Friday Mr Brumby remained committed to a
budget surplus of at least $100 million.
Infrastructure industry sources said the commonwealth and states were now looking
at emergency plans for the Federal Government to shore up struggling PPPs across
the country.
"The commonwealth is actively looking at options," an industry source said.
As Victoria's biggest civic project, the desalination plant is likely to be among
those in need of federal support. Infrastructure industry figures are hopeful the
Federal Government will follow a British plan to establish a special bank to help
finance struggling PPPs.
But after doling out tens of billions of dollars to pump-prime the economy, the
Federal Government is under pressure to tighten its own belt.While the Government
has vowed to press ahead with big infrastructure spending, its razor gang is looking
for cuts, rather than new projects.
It seems unlikely any federal support for the desalination plant will come from the
already cashstrapped Building Australia fund, overseen by businessman Rod Eddington.
The fund has found itself with less money than first hoped — just $12.6 billion,
rather the $20 billion anticipated in the May budget.
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia executive director Brendan Lyon said he
would not be surprised if Canberra came to the aid of Victoria's desalination plant,
as well as other PPPs.
"All governments are talking to one another about the challenges of debt markets
and the challenges facing the infrastructure sector from the global financial crisis."
Since its surprise announcement in 2007, the desalination plant has become
increasingly central to the government's water strategy, due to the worsening
drought and the effect of bushfires on Melbourne's already stretched water reserves.
State Government figures warned the bidders may be trying to use the media to
put pressure on the Government in the tough closing negotiations.
Government spokesman Matt Nurse said the Government could not comment on
how the desalination project would be financed."The project to build Australia's
largest desalination plant is on track, however as there is a competitive bidding
process under way we are unable to comment on the bids from the two shortlisted
consortia," he said.
Got a tip?
Email investigations@theage.com.au
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Desal tension erupts
Posted by The Star
on 16/03/2010
By Jane Ross
THE tension between desalination plant consortium AquaSure and protest group Watershed Victoria has exploded.
Each accuses the other of dirty tactics.
AquaSure chairman Chloe Munro has issued an open letter to Watershed accusing some of its members of intimidating, harassing and embarrassing its staff at the desalination information office in Wonthaggi.
Watershed denies the allegations and has issued its own open letter to AquaSure, highlighting concerns about impacts of the plant’s construction on the environment and community life. It says questions are constantly put, but answers don’t come.
“Instead, we are increasingly being ignored and belittled by communications staff from AquaSure and DSE,” states their letter.
In the midst of the drama, come revelations at the weekend that AquaSure is gathering “intelligence” about protestors and their activities and passing the details on to police.
This is the reverse of earlier worries about intelligence-gathering, whereby police had been authorised by the State Government to pass such information on to AquaSure.
According to Watershed president Stephen Cannon of Dalyston, the switch “muddies the waters”.
“Who’s doing what? It now seems the delegation of the spying function has gone to the private consortium.
“It’s character-assassination,” he added, “they’re attempting to portray you as a quasi-terrorist.”
Bass MLA Ken Smith is appalled by what he termed “spying on our local community”.
He said desalination protests had always been conducted in a controlled and lawful way and “this government has treated them with absolute contempt”.
AquaSure CEO Chris Herbert, said the consortium and its contractors “are not in the business of intelligence gathering.
“In doing so, we are responsible for public and worker safety, if we have valid concerns that there is a threat to public or worker safety we will, like any responsible organisation, report these concerns to the relevant authorities.”
Ms Munro’s complaints about the behaviour of a group of Watershed members stem from March 9.
“The staff on duty were confronted by a group of ten people, who subjected our staff to loud verbal harassment and a range of inappropriate personal questions.
That’s not how it was according to Jessica Harrison, who was part of the group. Ms Harrison lives in Wonthaggi. She said the visit to the desalination information office was an impromptu one, following a demonstration outside the Wonthaggi branches of the National Australia and Westpac banks over desalination funding issues.
She said the group was seeking answers to two long-standing and controversial questions: would the plant’s intake and outlet pipes end at an offshore reef or continue beyond it and would sludge resulting from the desalination process be dumped at Lyndhurst or somewhere else?
“We’re worried. We are trying to get those facts out in the open,” said Ms Harrison. “We were not threatening to staff.”
Mr Cannon said no complaint had been referred to him by AquaSure.
Ms Munro’s letter said AquaSure and its contractors are endeavouring to deliver desalination “with the utmost consideration and care of the local community and the local environment”.
Watershed’s open letter calls for the release of a traffic management strategy, a comprehensive list of chemicals to be used by the plant, details of waste disposal and assurances that iron sludge and organic matter will not be discharged to the sea.
Mr Cannon, who was not part of the group visit to the desalination information office on March 9, told The Star he thought it would be more constructive for AquaSure to answer these questions rather than “tattle taling”.
Responding to a number of questions put by The Star yesterday, Mr Herbert said Watershed had been “advised repeatedly” that a final decision has not been made about where the marine intake and outlet structures will be located; that rests with the EPA.
on 16/03/2010
By Jane Ross
THE tension between desalination plant consortium AquaSure and protest group Watershed Victoria has exploded.
Each accuses the other of dirty tactics.
AquaSure chairman Chloe Munro has issued an open letter to Watershed accusing some of its members of intimidating, harassing and embarrassing its staff at the desalination information office in Wonthaggi.
Watershed denies the allegations and has issued its own open letter to AquaSure, highlighting concerns about impacts of the plant’s construction on the environment and community life. It says questions are constantly put, but answers don’t come.
“Instead, we are increasingly being ignored and belittled by communications staff from AquaSure and DSE,” states their letter.
In the midst of the drama, come revelations at the weekend that AquaSure is gathering “intelligence” about protestors and their activities and passing the details on to police.
This is the reverse of earlier worries about intelligence-gathering, whereby police had been authorised by the State Government to pass such information on to AquaSure.
According to Watershed president Stephen Cannon of Dalyston, the switch “muddies the waters”.
“Who’s doing what? It now seems the delegation of the spying function has gone to the private consortium.
“It’s character-assassination,” he added, “they’re attempting to portray you as a quasi-terrorist.”
Bass MLA Ken Smith is appalled by what he termed “spying on our local community”.
He said desalination protests had always been conducted in a controlled and lawful way and “this government has treated them with absolute contempt”.
AquaSure CEO Chris Herbert, said the consortium and its contractors “are not in the business of intelligence gathering.
“In doing so, we are responsible for public and worker safety, if we have valid concerns that there is a threat to public or worker safety we will, like any responsible organisation, report these concerns to the relevant authorities.”
Ms Munro’s complaints about the behaviour of a group of Watershed members stem from March 9.
“The staff on duty were confronted by a group of ten people, who subjected our staff to loud verbal harassment and a range of inappropriate personal questions.
That’s not how it was according to Jessica Harrison, who was part of the group. Ms Harrison lives in Wonthaggi. She said the visit to the desalination information office was an impromptu one, following a demonstration outside the Wonthaggi branches of the National Australia and Westpac banks over desalination funding issues.
She said the group was seeking answers to two long-standing and controversial questions: would the plant’s intake and outlet pipes end at an offshore reef or continue beyond it and would sludge resulting from the desalination process be dumped at Lyndhurst or somewhere else?
“We’re worried. We are trying to get those facts out in the open,” said Ms Harrison. “We were not threatening to staff.”
Mr Cannon said no complaint had been referred to him by AquaSure.
Ms Munro’s letter said AquaSure and its contractors are endeavouring to deliver desalination “with the utmost consideration and care of the local community and the local environment”.
Watershed’s open letter calls for the release of a traffic management strategy, a comprehensive list of chemicals to be used by the plant, details of waste disposal and assurances that iron sludge and organic matter will not be discharged to the sea.
Mr Cannon, who was not part of the group visit to the desalination information office on March 9, told The Star he thought it would be more constructive for AquaSure to answer these questions rather than “tattle taling”.
Responding to a number of questions put by The Star yesterday, Mr Herbert said Watershed had been “advised repeatedly” that a final decision has not been made about where the marine intake and outlet structures will be located; that rests with the EPA.
Squatting
Squatting may be the only option left for those being forced out due to the desal plants
construction and worker influx.
As we (basscoast residents) have received no real help from those causing this problem
specifically the basscoast council and state government we know that many of those being
evicted have no where to go and not many options either, so we will not be surprised if
many of these low income earners decide to squat in their properties.
There are no low income housing facilities in the Basscoast available to those victims
(basscoast residents) of the desal plant and none being built for 2 years, so where does
this council and state government expect them to go?
I have already heard of one lady who was evicted by greedy owners that is living on a
recreaction reserve in a tent because she could not find any housing she could
afford. Another lady has 2 months to find a home she can afford but cannot find one
under 350 per week which will take most of her wage and she has 6 kids to feed first !
So to those who dont know where to go, hang in there and keep hoping that someone
from either government will see how ridiculos this is and bring it to an end!
Goodluck to all of us !
PS: The Squatters Handbook has been listed in the links on this page.
construction and worker influx.
As we (basscoast residents) have received no real help from those causing this problem
specifically the basscoast council and state government we know that many of those being
evicted have no where to go and not many options either, so we will not be surprised if
many of these low income earners decide to squat in their properties.
There are no low income housing facilities in the Basscoast available to those victims
(basscoast residents) of the desal plant and none being built for 2 years, so where does
this council and state government expect them to go?
I have already heard of one lady who was evicted by greedy owners that is living on a
recreaction reserve in a tent because she could not find any housing she could
afford. Another lady has 2 months to find a home she can afford but cannot find one
under 350 per week which will take most of her wage and she has 6 kids to feed first !
So to those who dont know where to go, hang in there and keep hoping that someone
from either government will see how ridiculos this is and bring it to an end!
Goodluck to all of us !
PS: The Squatters Handbook has been listed in the links on this page.
Brumby's poor water report card
The Nationals
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
The Brumby Government’s failure to plan for appropriate water infrastructure has led to a series of ill-conceived projects such as the north-south pipeline, a report released by Engineers Australia shows today.
Shadow Minister for Country Water Resources and Deputy Leader of The Nationals Peter Walsh said the report was a damning assessment of the Brumby Government’s performance across key areas of water infrastructure including potable water, stormwater, wastewater and irrigation.
“The report shows Labor failed to act on the water crisis or to address ongoing water restrictions until it was too late,” Mr Walsh said.
“Taxpayers are now forking out millions of dollars for expensive and unnecessary projects because John Brumby failed to plan for the state’s water needs.
“Worse still, Engineers Australia believes planning to achieve major changes in water supply and use is still not evident, meaning additional desalination plants may be needed in the future.”
In a series of forthright criticisms, the report found:
• The Wonthaggi desalination plant may not have been needed if other sources of water supply had been pursued seriously since the 1990s;
• The best value water solution may not have been selected in several major water augmentation projects;
• The government should have implemented a state-wide urban stormwater strategy;
• The government’s failure to find uses for billions of litres of Class-A recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant is a waste of valuable water; and
• Water savings from irrigation projects may have been over-estimated.
Mr Walsh said the report backed the Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition’s calls for increased use of stormwater.
“This report confirms that Labor’s water policies have been wasteful,” Mr Walsh said.
“John Brumby has spent millions of dollars on the north-south pipeline and the Wonthaggi desalination plant when he could have harvested stormwater from Melbourne’s own catchment.”
Mr Walsh said the report also validated concerns that the Brumby Government had overstated the water savings available from its irrigation projects.
“This report confirms that the Brumby Government cannot be trusted to manage Victoria’s water,” Mr Walsh said.
Media contact: Peter Walsh (03) 5032 3154 (03) 5032 3154
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
The Brumby Government’s failure to plan for appropriate water infrastructure has led to a series of ill-conceived projects such as the north-south pipeline, a report released by Engineers Australia shows today.
Shadow Minister for Country Water Resources and Deputy Leader of The Nationals Peter Walsh said the report was a damning assessment of the Brumby Government’s performance across key areas of water infrastructure including potable water, stormwater, wastewater and irrigation.
“The report shows Labor failed to act on the water crisis or to address ongoing water restrictions until it was too late,” Mr Walsh said.
“Taxpayers are now forking out millions of dollars for expensive and unnecessary projects because John Brumby failed to plan for the state’s water needs.
“Worse still, Engineers Australia believes planning to achieve major changes in water supply and use is still not evident, meaning additional desalination plants may be needed in the future.”
In a series of forthright criticisms, the report found:
• The Wonthaggi desalination plant may not have been needed if other sources of water supply had been pursued seriously since the 1990s;
• The best value water solution may not have been selected in several major water augmentation projects;
• The government should have implemented a state-wide urban stormwater strategy;
• The government’s failure to find uses for billions of litres of Class-A recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant is a waste of valuable water; and
• Water savings from irrigation projects may have been over-estimated.
Mr Walsh said the report backed the Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition’s calls for increased use of stormwater.
“This report confirms that Labor’s water policies have been wasteful,” Mr Walsh said.
“John Brumby has spent millions of dollars on the north-south pipeline and the Wonthaggi desalination plant when he could have harvested stormwater from Melbourne’s own catchment.”
Mr Walsh said the report also validated concerns that the Brumby Government had overstated the water savings available from its irrigation projects.
“This report confirms that the Brumby Government cannot be trusted to manage Victoria’s water,” Mr Walsh said.
Media contact: Peter Walsh (03) 5032 3154 (03) 5032 3154
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Inverloch Real Estate Agents & The Housing Accord
Inverloch Real Estate Agents are not protecting the local rental market for this
community as they were expected to by the Basscoast Council's Housing Accord.
The VDP Housing accord is an agreement between key stakeholders which
recognises that there is a need to implement a housing strategy ensuring that the current
rental market remains available to permanent residents of the Basscoast region and its not !
The VDP Housng Accord states: It is recognised that there will be significant
economic benefits for agencies that participate in providing suitable accomodation options
to the desalination plant workforce. It also states that it is important that the particpating
agencies acknowledge this opportunity and do not compromise the affordabilty of their
services and they are !
The strategy sections of the VDP Housing Accord was also designed to protect those
of us living in the shire with minimal adverse effects and impact and it was also to ensure
that long term affordable rentals are available to the permanent community and that rental
prices do not substancially increase creating pressure on low income renters, yet it is !
These agents are supposed to be sourcing this accomodation form an entirely new market
specifically the holiday rentals based in this shire, yet they are not!
So who is actually Policing this Accord and has anyone been found to be in breach
of it yet?and if so what were the consequences?
I want to know, dont you ?All I can see happening is the rich getting richer and
the poor getting screwed by greedy agents with no moral conscience !
Dont deal with these agents ! It's all about the money for them, nothing else!
community as they were expected to by the Basscoast Council's Housing Accord.
The VDP Housing accord is an agreement between key stakeholders which
recognises that there is a need to implement a housing strategy ensuring that the current
rental market remains available to permanent residents of the Basscoast region and its not !
The VDP Housng Accord states: It is recognised that there will be significant
economic benefits for agencies that participate in providing suitable accomodation options
to the desalination plant workforce. It also states that it is important that the particpating
agencies acknowledge this opportunity and do not compromise the affordabilty of their
services and they are !
The strategy sections of the VDP Housing Accord was also designed to protect those
of us living in the shire with minimal adverse effects and impact and it was also to ensure
that long term affordable rentals are available to the permanent community and that rental
prices do not substancially increase creating pressure on low income renters, yet it is !
These agents are supposed to be sourcing this accomodation form an entirely new market
specifically the holiday rentals based in this shire, yet they are not!
So who is actually Policing this Accord and has anyone been found to be in breach
of it yet?and if so what were the consequences?
I want to know, dont you ?All I can see happening is the rich getting richer and
the poor getting screwed by greedy agents with no moral conscience !
Dont deal with these agents ! It's all about the money for them, nothing else!
DESALINATION WITH A GRAIN OF SALT – A California Perspective.
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, California
Written by: Heather Cooley, Peter H. Gleick, and Gary Wolff .
See whole report here http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/desalination_report.pdf
or refer to links in left hand column.
JUNE 2006
Brine Composition and Discharge
Adequate and safe disposal of the concentrated brine produced by the plant presents a significant environmental challenge. Brine salinity depends on the salinity of the feedwater, the desalination method, and the recovery rate of the plant. Typical brines contain twice as much salt as the feedwater and have a higher density. In addition to high salt levels, brine from seawater desalination facilities can contain concentrations of constituents typically found in seawater, such as manganese, lead, and iodine, as well as chemicals introduced via urban and agricultural runoff,
Subsurface intake wells use sand as a natural filter and can reduce or eliminate impingement and entrainment of marine organisms and reduce chemical use during pre-treatment. such as nitrates (Talavera and Ruiz 2001), and impinged and entrained marine organisms killed during the desalination process, as noted above.
Composition
Chemicals used throughout the desalination process may also be discharged with the brine. The majority of these chemicals are applied during pre-treatment to prevent membrane fouling (Amalfitano and Lam 2005). For example, chlorine and other biocides are applied continuously to prevent organisms from growing on the plant’s interior, and sodium bisulfite is then often added to eliminate the chlorine, which can damage membranes. Anti-scalants, such as polyacrylic or sulfuric acid, are also added to prevent salt deposits from forming on piping. Coagulants, such as ferric chloride and polymers, are added to the feedwater to bind particles together.
The feedwater, with all of the added chemicals, then passé through a filter, which collects the particulate matter. The RO membranes reject the chemicals used during the desalination process into the brine. The particulate matter on the filter is also discharged with the brine or collected and sent to a landfill.
In addition to using chemicals for pre- treatment, chemicals are required to clean and store the RO membranes. Industrial soaps and dilute alkaline and acid aqueous solutions are commonly used to clean the membranes every three to six months. The membranes are then rinsed with product water. The first rinse, which contains a majority of the cleaning solution, is typically neutralized and disposed of in local treatment systems.
Subsequent rinses, however, are often discharged into the brine. Frequent cleaning and replacement of the membranes due to excess membrane fouling may lead to discharges in violation of sanitary system discharge permits. This problem has occurred in Tampa Bay.
ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION
Brine also contains heavy metals introduced during the desalination process. Corrosion of the desalination equipment leaches a number of heavy metals, including copper, lead, and iron, into the waste stream. In an early study of a desalination plant in Florida, Chesher (1975) found elevated copper and nickel levels in the water column and in sediments near the brine discharge point. Copper levels were particularly high during unstable operating periods and immediately following maintenance, although engineering changes made at the plant permanently reduced copper levels.
Perhaps the best way to reduce the effects of brine disposal is to reduce the volume of brine that must be discharged and minimize the adverse chemicals found in the brines. Both man-made filters and natural filtration processes can reduce the amount of chemicals applied during the pre-treatment process. Ultrafiltration, for example, can replace coagulants, effectively removing silt and organic matter from feedwater (Dudek and Associates 2005). Ultrafiltration also removes some of the guesswork involved in balancing the pre-treatment chemicals, as pre-treatment “must be continuously optimized to deal with influent characteristics” (Amalfintano and Lam 2005). These filters, however, are backwashed periodically to remove sludge build up and cleaned with the same solution used on RO membranes. Backwash can be disposed of with the waste brine or dewatered and disposed of on land. Additionally, subsurface intake wells, which use sand as a natural filter, reduce chemical usage during pre-treatment by reducing the biological organisms that cause bio fouling.
Discharge
A number of brine disposal options are available. For desalination plants located on the coast, disposal methods include discharge to evaporation ponds, the ocean, confined aquifers, or saline rivers that flow into an estuary. Options for inland disposal of brines and concentrates include deep-well injection, pond evaporation, solar energy ponds, shallow aquifer storage for future use, and disposal to a saline sink via pipeline or injection to a saline aquifer (NAS 2004).
Each disposal method, however, has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.
Large land requirements make evaporation ponds uneconomical for many developed or urban areas. Sites along the California coast, for example, tend to have high land values, and coastal development for industrial processes is discouraged. Injection of brine into confined groundwater aquifers is technically feasible, but it is both expensive and hard to ensure that other local groundwater resources remain uncontaminated.
Unless comprehensive and competent groundwater surveys are done, there is a risk of unconfined brine plumes appearing in freshwater wells. Direct discharges into estuaries and the ocean disrupt natural salinity balances and cause environmental damage of sensitive marshes or fisheries. All of these methods add to the cost of the process, and some of them are not yet technically or commercially available.
As noted by the 2003 U.S. Desalination Roadmap, “finding environmentally-sensitive disposal options for this concentrate that do not jeopardize the sustainability of water sources is difficult, and, thus, next-generation desalination plants will have to be designed to minimize the production of these concentrates, or find useful applications for them” (USBR and SNL 2003).
Ocean discharge is the most common and least expensive disposal method for coastal desalination plants (Del Bene et al. 1994), although this approach can have significant impacts on the marine environment.
Brine discharged into the ocean can be pure, mixed with wastewater effluent, or combined with cooling water from a co-located power plant.35
Ocean discharge assumes that dilution of brine with much larger volumes of ocean water will reduce toxicity and ecological impacts. The notion that diluting brine with cooling water reduces the toxicity of the brine is based on the old adage, “Dilution is the solution to pollution.” While this may be true for some brine components, such as salt, it does not apply to others. The toxicity of persistent toxic elements, including some subject to bioaccumulation, such as heavy metals, is not effectively minimized by dilution. In addition, little is known about the synergistic effects of mixing brine with either wastewater effluent or cooling water from power plants.
Because brine is typically twice as saline as the feedwater, it has a higher density than the receiving water and exhibits a distinct physical behavior.
As a general rule, brine follows a downward trajectory after release. If brine is released from an outfall along the seafloor, as is typical, it tends to sink and slowly spread along the ocean floor. Mixing along the ocean floor is much slower than at the surface, thus inhibiting dilution and Ocean discharge is the most common and least expensive disposal method for coastal desalination plants, although this approach can have significant impacts on the marine environment. 35
Mixing brine with waste water may contaminate what is increasingly being considered a new source of water. For this reason, municipal waste water should not be used for brine dilution increasing the risk of ecological damage (Chesher 1975).
Other factors are also important, however. Brine behavior varies according to local conditions (i.e., bottom topography, current velocity, and wave action) and discharge characteristics (i.e., concentration, quantity, and temperature) (Del Bene et al. 1994, Einav and Lokiec 2003). The site specificity of brine behavior suggests that plume models optimized to handle negatively buoyant discharges should be employed to determine the potential marine impacts of all proposed desalination plants.
The chemical constituents and physical behavior of brine discharge pose a threat to marine organisms. Brine can kill organisms on short timescales and may also cause more subtle changes in the community assemblage over longer time periods: “Heat, trace metals, brine, and other toxicants may result in acute mortality to organisms in the receiving water body.
Subtle changes in distribution and abundance patterns and sublethal changes in the physiological, behavioral, and/or reproductive condition of resident organisms may occur” (Brining et al. 1981). Bioaccumulation of toxicants and synergistic effects are also possible.
Certain habitat types, organisms, and organismal life stages are at greater risk than others. Along California’s coast, rocky habitat and kelp beds are particularly rich, sensitive ecosystems, and effort should be made to avoid these areas. Benthic organisms in the immediate vicinity of the discharge pipe are at the greatest risk from the effects of brine discharge. These can include crabs, clams, shrimp, halibut, and ling cod. Some have limited mobility and are unable to move in response to altered conditions. Many
benthic organisms are important ecologically because they link primary producers, such as phytoplankton, with larger consumers (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Additionally, juveniles and larvae may also be at greater risk (Cal Am and RBF Consulting 2005).
In 1979, Winters et al. noted the risks that the chemical constituents and physical behavior of brine may pose a threat to the marine environment and stressed the need for adequate monitoring:
It is impossible to determine the extent of ecological changes brought about by some human activity (e.g., desalination) without totally studying the system involved. Ideally such studies should involve a thorough investigation of both the physical and biological components of the environment. These studies should be done over a long period of time. Baseline data should actually be gathered at the site prior to construction for subsequent comparative uses. This will allow for a thorough understanding of the area in its ‘natural’ state. Once the plant is in operation monitoring should be continued on aregular basis for a period of at least one year but preferably for two or three years.
More than 25 years later, however, only a few studies have performed a comprehensive analysis of the effects of brine discharge on the marine environment, particularly on the West Coast of the United States, as noted in Cal Am and RBF Consulting (2005); the majority of studies conducted thus far focus on a limited number of species over a short time period with no baseline data.
The chemical constituents and physical behaviour of brine discharge pose a threat to marine organisms.
More comprehensive studies are needed to adequately identify and mitigate the impacts of brine discharge. A study conducted by Chesher on the biological impacts of a multi-stage flash desalination plant in Key West, Florida in 1975 serves as a good model but is in serious need of updating. Chesher’s thorough analysis included a chemical and physical analysis of the discharge, a historical analysis of sediments to determine the concentration of heavy metals and the abundance of certain fauna over time, and in situ and laboratory biological assessments of a number of organisms. Chesher found that “[a]ll experiments showed the effluent had a pronounced impact on the biological system within Safe Harbor. Even the organisms which were more abundant at Safe Harbor stations than at control stations were adversely affected in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.” Although impacts are site-specific, Chesher’s study suggests that further research and monitoring are necessary and that mitigation may be required.
In their 1993 report on desalination, the CCC also cites a lack of information about the marine impacts of desalination – a problem that has yet to be resolved. The CCC compiled a thorough list of pre- and post-operational data that should be collected to evaluate the marine impacts associated with brine discharge (CCC 1993). Table 8 summarizes these data.
We strongly recommend that this information be acquired for all plants proposing to locate along the California coast before permits are issued.
Desalination Facilities Will Be Vulnerable to Some Climatic Impacts
Desalination facilities are likely to have some special vulnerability to climate impacts. Ocean desalination plants are constructed on the coast and are particularly vulnerable to changes associated with rising sea levels, storm surges, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Intake and outfall structures are affected by sea level. Over the expected lifetime of a desalination facility, sea levels could plausibly rise by as much as a foot or more, and storm patterns are also likely to change on a comparable time scale. All of these impacts have the potential to affect desalination plant design and operation and should be evaluated before plant construction and operation is permitted.
Desalination Facilities Exacerbate Climate Change with Their Large Use of Energy
The water sector consumes a tremendous amount of energy to capture, treat, transport, and use water.
The California Energy Commission (2005) estimates that the water sector in California used 19% and 32% of total electricity and natural gas use, respectively, in 2001. Substantial quantities of diesel were also consumed in California’s water sector.
Because desalination is the most energy-intensive source of water, desalination will increase the amount of energy consumed by the water sector.
The currently proposed desalination plants would increase the water elated energy use by 5% over 2001 levels.38
The energy-intensive nature of desalination means that extensive development can contribute to greater dependence on fossil fuels, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a worsening of climate change. We recommend that regulatory agencies consider requiring all new desalination facilities be carbon-neutral – i.e., that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with desalination facilities be offset through energy efficiency improvements, or greenhouse gas emission reductions elsewhere.
While this approach has not yet been adopted for other sectors in California, we recommend that regulatory agencies consider requiring all new desalination facilities be carbon-neutral, it is warranted given the likely significant impacts of climate change on California’s water resources.
Desalination with Alternative Energy Systems Can Reduce Climate Impacts
One way to decouple the impacts of desalination facilities on climate emissions is to power them with non-fossil fuel sources. Desalination optimists have long pointed to the possibility of running desalination plants with alternative energy systems, from solar to nuclear, as a way of reducing costs or dependence on fossil fuels, and more recently, as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local contributions to climate change. While this discussion continues, there is, as yet, no economic advantage to dedicating alternative energy systems to desalination because of the high costs relative to more-traditional energy systems and the lack of a regulatory agreement to control greenhouse gases.
The barriers to greater use of alternative energy are rarely technical. Solar energy has been used directly for over a century to distil brackish water and seawater. The simplest example of this type of process is the greenhouse solar still, in which saline water is heated and evaporated by incoming solar radiation in a basin on the floor and the water vapour condenses on a sloping glass roof that covers the basin. When commercial plate glass began to be produced toward the end of the 19th century, solar stills were developed. One of the first successful solar systems was built in 1872 in Las Salinas, Chile, an area with very limited fresh water. This still covered 4,500 square meters, operated for 40 years, and produced over 5,000 gallons/d (about 20 m3/d) of fresh water (Delyannis and Delyannis 1984). Variations of this type of solar still have been tested in an effort to increase efficiency, but they all share some major difficulties, including solar collection area requirements, high capital costs, and vulnerability to weather-related damage.
There are examples of desalting units that use more-advanced renewable systems to provide heat or electrical energy. Some modern desalination facilities are now run with electricity produced by wind turbines or photo-voltaics.
An inventory of known wind- and solar-powered desalting plants (Wangnick/GWI 2005) listed around 100 units as of the end of 2004. Most of these are demonstration facilities with capacities smaller than 0.013 MGD (50 m3/d), though a 0.08 MGD (300 m3/d) plant using wind energy was recently built in Cape Verde. The largest renewable energy desalination plant listed by the end of 2005 was a 0.5 MGD (2,000-m3/d) plant in Libya, which was built to use wind energy systems for power. A 0.3 MGD (1,000-m3/d) plant in Libya in the same location was designed to use photovoltaics for energy. Both of these plants went into operation in 1992 and desalted brackish water using RO. No plants run solely with nuclear power have been built, although a few desalination plants supply high-quality water for nuclear facilities (Wangnick/GWI 2005).
Renewable energy systems can be expensive to construct and maintain.
While the principal energy input is free, the capital cost of these systems is still high. As with conventional plants, the final cost of water from these plants depends, in large part, on the cost of energy. A pilot plant combining photovoltaic electricity production with ED operated for a while in Gallup, New Mexico, producing around 800 gallons/d (3 m3/d) of fresh water at a cost of around $11.36/kgal ($3.00/m3) (Price 1999).
At present, this cost is prohibitive for typical water agencies, but these systems may be more economical for remote areas where the cost of bringing in conventional energy sources is very high. If the price of fossil fuels increases or renewable energy costs drop, such systems will look more attractive. Ultimately, these energy systems must prove themselves on the market before any such coupling can become attractive.
Co-Locating Desalination and Energy Facilities
Integrating desalination systems with existing power plants (or building joint facilities) offers a number of possible advantages, including making use of discarded thermal energy from the power plant (co-generation), lower-cost electricity due to off-peak use and avoided power grid transmission costs, and existing intake and outfall structures to obtain seawater and discharge brine. In addition, building on existing sites may prevent impacts at more pristine or controversial locations. Co-location can produce substantial energy and economic advantages and, some argue, reduce environmental impacts. Co-location is common for distillation plants built in the Persian Gulf, was proposed by Poseidon Resources for the Tampa Bay desalination plant, and is being considered for nearly half of the proposed plants in California (Filtration and Separation 2005b). While many of the distillation plants installed in the Middle East and North Africa use co-generation, the proposed co-located plants along the California coast share physical infrastructure like the intake and outfall pipes and are only loosely thermally coupled to the power plant. Under this arrangement, a portion of the power plant cooling water is pumped to the adjacent desalination plant, where it undergoes treatment. Warm water from the power plant requires less energy to remove salts, thereby lowering treatment costs. The brine is then returned to the outfall and diluted with cooling water from the power plant.
Given the type of co-location proposed in California and conditions in California, it is not clear whether the economic advantages of co-location are as substantial as some claim. Since intake and outfall pipelines can be 5% to 20% of the capital cost of a new facility (Voutchkov 2005), collocation can potentially reduce costs by up to 10% (assuming capital costs are 50% of total costs). But savings from co-location may be much smaller, even trivial, depending on the setting. And as noted above, a 25% increase in energy cost would more than offset a 10% savings from co-location. In addition, current state and federal utility laws do not allow desalination plants to obtain below-market rates from an adjacent power plant that sells power to the grid, thus lessening the economic advantages of co-location (CDWR 2003, CPUC 2005).
Co-location may also have drawbacks that require careful review and consideration. Opponents argue that co-location will prolong the life of power plants that use OTC systems. OTC is an inexpensive, simple technology in which seawater is pumped through the heat exchange equipment once and then discharged. These cooling systems impinge and entrain marine organisms and discharge warm water laced with antifouling chemicals into the ocean, resulting in significant environmental
Co-location can produce substantial energy and economic advantages and, some argue, reduce environmental impacts. Co-location may also have drawbacks that require careful review and consideration.
Many of the power plants using OTC systems were constructed prior to 1980, when the marine impacts of this technology were not well understood or regulated. The California Energy Commission recently concluded that “California marine and estuarine environments are in decline and the once-through cooling systems of coastal power plants are contributing to the degradation of our coastal waters” (York and Foster
2005).
The future of OTC systems remains unclear; as a result, the proposed collocated plants face a large degree of uncertainty about future operations. Federal and state agencies, whose regulations cover coastal power plants, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), CCC, California Energy Commission, and State Lands Commission, recognize the problems posed by OTC systems and are pushing for tighter restrictions. For example, the State Lands Commission, which administers and protects public trust lands that underlie navigable waters, adopted a resolution that calls for denying new land leases or extensions of existing land leases for facilities associated with OTC systems after 2020 (CSLC 2006). In addition, U.S. EPA, which regulates cooling water intake structures under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, issued new regulations for existing power plants in 2004 requiring them to reduce impingement by 80% to 95% and entrainment by 60% to 90 percent. The U.S. EPA provided a number of compliance options to meet the new 316(b) requirements, such as (1) reducing intake flow to levels similar to those of a closed-cycle cooling system; (2) implementing technology, operational measures, or restoration measures that meet the performance standard; and (3) demonstrating that costs exceed the benefits for that specific site.
A pending lawsuit by River keeper and a number of other organizations may disallow restoration and site-specific benefit-cost analysis as a means of complying with U.S. EPA’s new requirements. In California, SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs administer the U.S. EPA’s regulations on power plant cooling water discharge. Currently statewide policy regulates only the thermal discharge of power plants, whereas the RWQCBs regulate impingement and entrainment associated with cooling water intake structures. This arrangement has led to inconsistent regulation of impingement and entrainment effects across the state. Because of the flexibility in the U.S. EPA’s new 316(b) regulations, however, SWRCB will likely adopt a statewide strategy regulating impingement and entrainment. The statewide policy may be more stringent than the U.S. EPA’s regulations.
Alternative technologies and operational practices may help reduce or eliminate the marine impacts associated with OTC systems, but they also reduce power plant efficiency. York and Foster (2005) concluded that flow reduction and alternative cooling technologies, such as dry cooling and recirculating cooling, are the best options available, as “other entrainment and impingement reduction methods such as changes in intake location or physical or behavioral barriers have not proved to be feasible and/or effective for most power plants.” Further, “EPA’s own figures suggest that mandating recirculating cooling on all plants was highly cost-effective and would result in increased power costs to average residential customers of under a dollar per month” (Clean Air Task Force 2004). Ninety-five percent of the newly licensed power plants since 1996 use alternative cooling technologies (York and Foster 2005).
The future of OTC systems remains unclear; as a result, the proposed co-located plants face a large degree of uncertainty about future operations.
Significant reductions in water flow reduce the desalination plant’s feedwater supply and lead to more concentrated brine discharges. The desalination plant may also occupy the limited real estate needed to install alternative cooling technologies.
Co-location may create a regulatory loophole. It can be argued that the desalination plant will have no impacts above and beyond the OTC system and that any externalities associated with water intake, i.e., impingement and entrainment, are due to the OTC system. Once the desalination plants are built, however, they may then be used to justify continued use of OTC systems and allow the power plant operator to obtain a site-specific 316(b) exemption. Currently a power plant operator can obtain an exemption from the EPA’s 316(b) regulations if he or she can demonstrate that the cost of installing the new technology exceeds the benefits. If the forgone water supply is considered an additional cost of installing an alternative technology, the cost-benefit analysis may favour co-located plants. Thus, allowing desalination plants to piggyback off of power plants using OTC may prolong the life of this technology.
A desalination plant should not be an excuse to continue using an outdated, environmentally damaging technology. In the event that the SWRCB adopts strict OTC regulations, desalination plant operators must plan for the possibility that the co-located power plant will cease operation or reduce water flow significantly. In Huntington Beach, Poseidon has negotiated a contingency plan should the Huntington Beach Generating Station cease operation. If this occurs, Poseidon would have the option to buy the intake and discharge infrastructure but must acquire its own operating permits due to a change in project description (Poseidon Resources 2005a). This contingency, however, does not address the fact that there will no longer be cooling water available for brine dilution.
The EIR for the Carlsbad plant, also submitted by Poseidon Resources, offers no such contingency plan (Poseidon Resources 2005b). Because of the uncertainty associated with OTC systems, the effects of desalination must be assessed independently of the power plant. The California Desalination Task Force’s recommendation suggests that regulatory agencies are moving in this direction: “For proposed desalination facilities co-locating with power plants, analyse the impacts of the desalination facility operations apart from the operations of the co-located facilities. This will identify the impacts of the desalination facility operations when there are reductions in cooling water quantities” (CDWR 2003). The CCC has also adopted this approach.
In addition, co-location requires close coordination between two separate entities, the desalination plant and the power plant, thereby introducing additional uncertainty and cost into building and operating the desalination plant. For example, Cal Am, which is proposing to build a desalination plant at the Duke Energy power plant in Moss Landing, has not yet obtained a county permit to build a pilot plant because Duke Energy failed to comply with county wetland mitigation requirements. Duke Energy, which is now selling the site, was required to submit a wetland management plan and pay a $25,000 bond for removing an oil storage tank from their property. Duke Energy failed to pay the bond and must now update the bond assessment, a process that could take months to
A desalination plant should not be an excuse to continue using an outdated, environmentally damaging technology.
Cal Am officials feel that these delays are unwarranted given constructing the pilot plant will delay project completion.39 The uncertainty about future operations associated with OTC systems and coordination among separate entities suggests that permitting agencies and the public should apply a higher level of scrutiny to co-located desalination plants.
Environmental Justice Considerations
Most of the proposed desalination plants in California are likely to be located in existing industrial areas to take advantage of infrastructure and local resources. Because low-income populations tend to live in these areas, desalinations plants may have a disproportionate impact on these communities. These communities have traditionally borne significant airquality impacts from local facilities, higher exposure to noise and industrial chemicals, and truck traffic. When desalination facilities are built as co-located plants, the on-site energy plant may be forced to operate at a higher capacity or continuously, thereby increasing air-quality impacts.
Local communities may also suffer as a result of the desalination plant’s water-quality impacts; fish may have elevated levels of metals or other toxin, and those who rely on caught fish to supplement their protein intake may be adversely affected. Low-income and people of color may also bear disproportionate effects of increases in water rates (EJCW2005). The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water recommends several principles on environmental justice and water use:
• State legislatures should establish independent reviews of social, economic, and environmental inequities associated with current water rights and management systems.
• There should be independent review of the social and economic impacts of water development on local communities.
• Local public review and approval should be required for any proposal to introduce private control, management, or operation of public water systems.
• All water and land-use projects should be planned, implemented, and managed with participation from impacted community members.
• Actions are required to clean up pollution of water bodies upon which low-income populations rely for subsistence fishing (EJCW 2005).
Perhaps the greatest barrier to desalination remains its high economic cost compared to alternatives, including other sources of supply, improved wastewater reuse, and especially more efficient use and demand management. We do not believe that the economic evaluations of desalination commonly presented to regulators and the public adequately account for the complicated benefits and costs associated with issues of reliability, quality, local control, environmental effects, and impacts on development. In general, significant benefits and costs are often excluded from the costs presented publicly. California should pursue less costly, less environmentally damaging water-supply alternatives first.
Conclusion
Is desalination the ultimate solution to our water problems? No. Is it likely to be a piece of our water management puzzle? Yes. In the end, decisions about desalination developments will revolve around complex evaluations of local circumstances and needs, economics, financing, environmental and social impacts, and available alternatives.
We urge that such decisions be transparent, honest, public, and systematic.
ITG: With reports like this in the public domain why has Mr Holding gone ahead with the desal plants construction when it is obvious that it has critical consequences for the enviroment and the residents that live here ?
Will they only listen when its too late ?
I dont want my family or my enviroment to be unhealthy, so when will this government listen to these reports?....
Written by: Heather Cooley, Peter H. Gleick, and Gary Wolff .
See whole report here http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/desalination_report.pdf
or refer to links in left hand column.
JUNE 2006
Brine Composition and Discharge
Adequate and safe disposal of the concentrated brine produced by the plant presents a significant environmental challenge. Brine salinity depends on the salinity of the feedwater, the desalination method, and the recovery rate of the plant. Typical brines contain twice as much salt as the feedwater and have a higher density. In addition to high salt levels, brine from seawater desalination facilities can contain concentrations of constituents typically found in seawater, such as manganese, lead, and iodine, as well as chemicals introduced via urban and agricultural runoff,
Subsurface intake wells use sand as a natural filter and can reduce or eliminate impingement and entrainment of marine organisms and reduce chemical use during pre-treatment. such as nitrates (Talavera and Ruiz 2001), and impinged and entrained marine organisms killed during the desalination process, as noted above.
Composition
Chemicals used throughout the desalination process may also be discharged with the brine. The majority of these chemicals are applied during pre-treatment to prevent membrane fouling (Amalfitano and Lam 2005). For example, chlorine and other biocides are applied continuously to prevent organisms from growing on the plant’s interior, and sodium bisulfite is then often added to eliminate the chlorine, which can damage membranes. Anti-scalants, such as polyacrylic or sulfuric acid, are also added to prevent salt deposits from forming on piping. Coagulants, such as ferric chloride and polymers, are added to the feedwater to bind particles together.
The feedwater, with all of the added chemicals, then passé through a filter, which collects the particulate matter. The RO membranes reject the chemicals used during the desalination process into the brine. The particulate matter on the filter is also discharged with the brine or collected and sent to a landfill.
In addition to using chemicals for pre- treatment, chemicals are required to clean and store the RO membranes. Industrial soaps and dilute alkaline and acid aqueous solutions are commonly used to clean the membranes every three to six months. The membranes are then rinsed with product water. The first rinse, which contains a majority of the cleaning solution, is typically neutralized and disposed of in local treatment systems.
Subsequent rinses, however, are often discharged into the brine. Frequent cleaning and replacement of the membranes due to excess membrane fouling may lead to discharges in violation of sanitary system discharge permits. This problem has occurred in Tampa Bay.
ASSESSING THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DESALINATION
Brine also contains heavy metals introduced during the desalination process. Corrosion of the desalination equipment leaches a number of heavy metals, including copper, lead, and iron, into the waste stream. In an early study of a desalination plant in Florida, Chesher (1975) found elevated copper and nickel levels in the water column and in sediments near the brine discharge point. Copper levels were particularly high during unstable operating periods and immediately following maintenance, although engineering changes made at the plant permanently reduced copper levels.
Perhaps the best way to reduce the effects of brine disposal is to reduce the volume of brine that must be discharged and minimize the adverse chemicals found in the brines. Both man-made filters and natural filtration processes can reduce the amount of chemicals applied during the pre-treatment process. Ultrafiltration, for example, can replace coagulants, effectively removing silt and organic matter from feedwater (Dudek and Associates 2005). Ultrafiltration also removes some of the guesswork involved in balancing the pre-treatment chemicals, as pre-treatment “must be continuously optimized to deal with influent characteristics” (Amalfintano and Lam 2005). These filters, however, are backwashed periodically to remove sludge build up and cleaned with the same solution used on RO membranes. Backwash can be disposed of with the waste brine or dewatered and disposed of on land. Additionally, subsurface intake wells, which use sand as a natural filter, reduce chemical usage during pre-treatment by reducing the biological organisms that cause bio fouling.
Discharge
A number of brine disposal options are available. For desalination plants located on the coast, disposal methods include discharge to evaporation ponds, the ocean, confined aquifers, or saline rivers that flow into an estuary. Options for inland disposal of brines and concentrates include deep-well injection, pond evaporation, solar energy ponds, shallow aquifer storage for future use, and disposal to a saline sink via pipeline or injection to a saline aquifer (NAS 2004).
Each disposal method, however, has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.
Large land requirements make evaporation ponds uneconomical for many developed or urban areas. Sites along the California coast, for example, tend to have high land values, and coastal development for industrial processes is discouraged. Injection of brine into confined groundwater aquifers is technically feasible, but it is both expensive and hard to ensure that other local groundwater resources remain uncontaminated.
Unless comprehensive and competent groundwater surveys are done, there is a risk of unconfined brine plumes appearing in freshwater wells. Direct discharges into estuaries and the ocean disrupt natural salinity balances and cause environmental damage of sensitive marshes or fisheries. All of these methods add to the cost of the process, and some of them are not yet technically or commercially available.
As noted by the 2003 U.S. Desalination Roadmap, “finding environmentally-sensitive disposal options for this concentrate that do not jeopardize the sustainability of water sources is difficult, and, thus, next-generation desalination plants will have to be designed to minimize the production of these concentrates, or find useful applications for them” (USBR and SNL 2003).
Ocean discharge is the most common and least expensive disposal method for coastal desalination plants (Del Bene et al. 1994), although this approach can have significant impacts on the marine environment.
Brine discharged into the ocean can be pure, mixed with wastewater effluent, or combined with cooling water from a co-located power plant.35
Ocean discharge assumes that dilution of brine with much larger volumes of ocean water will reduce toxicity and ecological impacts. The notion that diluting brine with cooling water reduces the toxicity of the brine is based on the old adage, “Dilution is the solution to pollution.” While this may be true for some brine components, such as salt, it does not apply to others. The toxicity of persistent toxic elements, including some subject to bioaccumulation, such as heavy metals, is not effectively minimized by dilution. In addition, little is known about the synergistic effects of mixing brine with either wastewater effluent or cooling water from power plants.
Because brine is typically twice as saline as the feedwater, it has a higher density than the receiving water and exhibits a distinct physical behavior.
As a general rule, brine follows a downward trajectory after release. If brine is released from an outfall along the seafloor, as is typical, it tends to sink and slowly spread along the ocean floor. Mixing along the ocean floor is much slower than at the surface, thus inhibiting dilution and Ocean discharge is the most common and least expensive disposal method for coastal desalination plants, although this approach can have significant impacts on the marine environment. 35
Mixing brine with waste water may contaminate what is increasingly being considered a new source of water. For this reason, municipal waste water should not be used for brine dilution increasing the risk of ecological damage (Chesher 1975).
Other factors are also important, however. Brine behavior varies according to local conditions (i.e., bottom topography, current velocity, and wave action) and discharge characteristics (i.e., concentration, quantity, and temperature) (Del Bene et al. 1994, Einav and Lokiec 2003). The site specificity of brine behavior suggests that plume models optimized to handle negatively buoyant discharges should be employed to determine the potential marine impacts of all proposed desalination plants.
The chemical constituents and physical behavior of brine discharge pose a threat to marine organisms. Brine can kill organisms on short timescales and may also cause more subtle changes in the community assemblage over longer time periods: “Heat, trace metals, brine, and other toxicants may result in acute mortality to organisms in the receiving water body.
Subtle changes in distribution and abundance patterns and sublethal changes in the physiological, behavioral, and/or reproductive condition of resident organisms may occur” (Brining et al. 1981). Bioaccumulation of toxicants and synergistic effects are also possible.
Certain habitat types, organisms, and organismal life stages are at greater risk than others. Along California’s coast, rocky habitat and kelp beds are particularly rich, sensitive ecosystems, and effort should be made to avoid these areas. Benthic organisms in the immediate vicinity of the discharge pipe are at the greatest risk from the effects of brine discharge. These can include crabs, clams, shrimp, halibut, and ling cod. Some have limited mobility and are unable to move in response to altered conditions. Many
benthic organisms are important ecologically because they link primary producers, such as phytoplankton, with larger consumers (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Additionally, juveniles and larvae may also be at greater risk (Cal Am and RBF Consulting 2005).
In 1979, Winters et al. noted the risks that the chemical constituents and physical behavior of brine may pose a threat to the marine environment and stressed the need for adequate monitoring:
It is impossible to determine the extent of ecological changes brought about by some human activity (e.g., desalination) without totally studying the system involved. Ideally such studies should involve a thorough investigation of both the physical and biological components of the environment. These studies should be done over a long period of time. Baseline data should actually be gathered at the site prior to construction for subsequent comparative uses. This will allow for a thorough understanding of the area in its ‘natural’ state. Once the plant is in operation monitoring should be continued on aregular basis for a period of at least one year but preferably for two or three years.
More than 25 years later, however, only a few studies have performed a comprehensive analysis of the effects of brine discharge on the marine environment, particularly on the West Coast of the United States, as noted in Cal Am and RBF Consulting (2005); the majority of studies conducted thus far focus on a limited number of species over a short time period with no baseline data.
The chemical constituents and physical behaviour of brine discharge pose a threat to marine organisms.
More comprehensive studies are needed to adequately identify and mitigate the impacts of brine discharge. A study conducted by Chesher on the biological impacts of a multi-stage flash desalination plant in Key West, Florida in 1975 serves as a good model but is in serious need of updating. Chesher’s thorough analysis included a chemical and physical analysis of the discharge, a historical analysis of sediments to determine the concentration of heavy metals and the abundance of certain fauna over time, and in situ and laboratory biological assessments of a number of organisms. Chesher found that “[a]ll experiments showed the effluent had a pronounced impact on the biological system within Safe Harbor. Even the organisms which were more abundant at Safe Harbor stations than at control stations were adversely affected in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.” Although impacts are site-specific, Chesher’s study suggests that further research and monitoring are necessary and that mitigation may be required.
In their 1993 report on desalination, the CCC also cites a lack of information about the marine impacts of desalination – a problem that has yet to be resolved. The CCC compiled a thorough list of pre- and post-operational data that should be collected to evaluate the marine impacts associated with brine discharge (CCC 1993). Table 8 summarizes these data.
We strongly recommend that this information be acquired for all plants proposing to locate along the California coast before permits are issued.
Desalination Facilities Will Be Vulnerable to Some Climatic Impacts
Desalination facilities are likely to have some special vulnerability to climate impacts. Ocean desalination plants are constructed on the coast and are particularly vulnerable to changes associated with rising sea levels, storm surges, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Intake and outfall structures are affected by sea level. Over the expected lifetime of a desalination facility, sea levels could plausibly rise by as much as a foot or more, and storm patterns are also likely to change on a comparable time scale. All of these impacts have the potential to affect desalination plant design and operation and should be evaluated before plant construction and operation is permitted.
Desalination Facilities Exacerbate Climate Change with Their Large Use of Energy
The water sector consumes a tremendous amount of energy to capture, treat, transport, and use water.
The California Energy Commission (2005) estimates that the water sector in California used 19% and 32% of total electricity and natural gas use, respectively, in 2001. Substantial quantities of diesel were also consumed in California’s water sector.
Because desalination is the most energy-intensive source of water, desalination will increase the amount of energy consumed by the water sector.
The currently proposed desalination plants would increase the water elated energy use by 5% over 2001 levels.38
The energy-intensive nature of desalination means that extensive development can contribute to greater dependence on fossil fuels, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a worsening of climate change. We recommend that regulatory agencies consider requiring all new desalination facilities be carbon-neutral – i.e., that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with desalination facilities be offset through energy efficiency improvements, or greenhouse gas emission reductions elsewhere.
While this approach has not yet been adopted for other sectors in California, we recommend that regulatory agencies consider requiring all new desalination facilities be carbon-neutral, it is warranted given the likely significant impacts of climate change on California’s water resources.
Desalination with Alternative Energy Systems Can Reduce Climate Impacts
One way to decouple the impacts of desalination facilities on climate emissions is to power them with non-fossil fuel sources. Desalination optimists have long pointed to the possibility of running desalination plants with alternative energy systems, from solar to nuclear, as a way of reducing costs or dependence on fossil fuels, and more recently, as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local contributions to climate change. While this discussion continues, there is, as yet, no economic advantage to dedicating alternative energy systems to desalination because of the high costs relative to more-traditional energy systems and the lack of a regulatory agreement to control greenhouse gases.
The barriers to greater use of alternative energy are rarely technical. Solar energy has been used directly for over a century to distil brackish water and seawater. The simplest example of this type of process is the greenhouse solar still, in which saline water is heated and evaporated by incoming solar radiation in a basin on the floor and the water vapour condenses on a sloping glass roof that covers the basin. When commercial plate glass began to be produced toward the end of the 19th century, solar stills were developed. One of the first successful solar systems was built in 1872 in Las Salinas, Chile, an area with very limited fresh water. This still covered 4,500 square meters, operated for 40 years, and produced over 5,000 gallons/d (about 20 m3/d) of fresh water (Delyannis and Delyannis 1984). Variations of this type of solar still have been tested in an effort to increase efficiency, but they all share some major difficulties, including solar collection area requirements, high capital costs, and vulnerability to weather-related damage.
There are examples of desalting units that use more-advanced renewable systems to provide heat or electrical energy. Some modern desalination facilities are now run with electricity produced by wind turbines or photo-voltaics.
An inventory of known wind- and solar-powered desalting plants (Wangnick/GWI 2005) listed around 100 units as of the end of 2004. Most of these are demonstration facilities with capacities smaller than 0.013 MGD (50 m3/d), though a 0.08 MGD (300 m3/d) plant using wind energy was recently built in Cape Verde. The largest renewable energy desalination plant listed by the end of 2005 was a 0.5 MGD (2,000-m3/d) plant in Libya, which was built to use wind energy systems for power. A 0.3 MGD (1,000-m3/d) plant in Libya in the same location was designed to use photovoltaics for energy. Both of these plants went into operation in 1992 and desalted brackish water using RO. No plants run solely with nuclear power have been built, although a few desalination plants supply high-quality water for nuclear facilities (Wangnick/GWI 2005).
Renewable energy systems can be expensive to construct and maintain.
While the principal energy input is free, the capital cost of these systems is still high. As with conventional plants, the final cost of water from these plants depends, in large part, on the cost of energy. A pilot plant combining photovoltaic electricity production with ED operated for a while in Gallup, New Mexico, producing around 800 gallons/d (3 m3/d) of fresh water at a cost of around $11.36/kgal ($3.00/m3) (Price 1999).
At present, this cost is prohibitive for typical water agencies, but these systems may be more economical for remote areas where the cost of bringing in conventional energy sources is very high. If the price of fossil fuels increases or renewable energy costs drop, such systems will look more attractive. Ultimately, these energy systems must prove themselves on the market before any such coupling can become attractive.
Co-Locating Desalination and Energy Facilities
Integrating desalination systems with existing power plants (or building joint facilities) offers a number of possible advantages, including making use of discarded thermal energy from the power plant (co-generation), lower-cost electricity due to off-peak use and avoided power grid transmission costs, and existing intake and outfall structures to obtain seawater and discharge brine. In addition, building on existing sites may prevent impacts at more pristine or controversial locations. Co-location can produce substantial energy and economic advantages and, some argue, reduce environmental impacts. Co-location is common for distillation plants built in the Persian Gulf, was proposed by Poseidon Resources for the Tampa Bay desalination plant, and is being considered for nearly half of the proposed plants in California (Filtration and Separation 2005b). While many of the distillation plants installed in the Middle East and North Africa use co-generation, the proposed co-located plants along the California coast share physical infrastructure like the intake and outfall pipes and are only loosely thermally coupled to the power plant. Under this arrangement, a portion of the power plant cooling water is pumped to the adjacent desalination plant, where it undergoes treatment. Warm water from the power plant requires less energy to remove salts, thereby lowering treatment costs. The brine is then returned to the outfall and diluted with cooling water from the power plant.
Given the type of co-location proposed in California and conditions in California, it is not clear whether the economic advantages of co-location are as substantial as some claim. Since intake and outfall pipelines can be 5% to 20% of the capital cost of a new facility (Voutchkov 2005), collocation can potentially reduce costs by up to 10% (assuming capital costs are 50% of total costs). But savings from co-location may be much smaller, even trivial, depending on the setting. And as noted above, a 25% increase in energy cost would more than offset a 10% savings from co-location. In addition, current state and federal utility laws do not allow desalination plants to obtain below-market rates from an adjacent power plant that sells power to the grid, thus lessening the economic advantages of co-location (CDWR 2003, CPUC 2005).
Co-location may also have drawbacks that require careful review and consideration. Opponents argue that co-location will prolong the life of power plants that use OTC systems. OTC is an inexpensive, simple technology in which seawater is pumped through the heat exchange equipment once and then discharged. These cooling systems impinge and entrain marine organisms and discharge warm water laced with antifouling chemicals into the ocean, resulting in significant environmental
Co-location can produce substantial energy and economic advantages and, some argue, reduce environmental impacts. Co-location may also have drawbacks that require careful review and consideration.
Many of the power plants using OTC systems were constructed prior to 1980, when the marine impacts of this technology were not well understood or regulated. The California Energy Commission recently concluded that “California marine and estuarine environments are in decline and the once-through cooling systems of coastal power plants are contributing to the degradation of our coastal waters” (York and Foster
2005).
The future of OTC systems remains unclear; as a result, the proposed collocated plants face a large degree of uncertainty about future operations. Federal and state agencies, whose regulations cover coastal power plants, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), CCC, California Energy Commission, and State Lands Commission, recognize the problems posed by OTC systems and are pushing for tighter restrictions. For example, the State Lands Commission, which administers and protects public trust lands that underlie navigable waters, adopted a resolution that calls for denying new land leases or extensions of existing land leases for facilities associated with OTC systems after 2020 (CSLC 2006). In addition, U.S. EPA, which regulates cooling water intake structures under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, issued new regulations for existing power plants in 2004 requiring them to reduce impingement by 80% to 95% and entrainment by 60% to 90 percent. The U.S. EPA provided a number of compliance options to meet the new 316(b) requirements, such as (1) reducing intake flow to levels similar to those of a closed-cycle cooling system; (2) implementing technology, operational measures, or restoration measures that meet the performance standard; and (3) demonstrating that costs exceed the benefits for that specific site.
A pending lawsuit by River keeper and a number of other organizations may disallow restoration and site-specific benefit-cost analysis as a means of complying with U.S. EPA’s new requirements. In California, SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs administer the U.S. EPA’s regulations on power plant cooling water discharge. Currently statewide policy regulates only the thermal discharge of power plants, whereas the RWQCBs regulate impingement and entrainment associated with cooling water intake structures. This arrangement has led to inconsistent regulation of impingement and entrainment effects across the state. Because of the flexibility in the U.S. EPA’s new 316(b) regulations, however, SWRCB will likely adopt a statewide strategy regulating impingement and entrainment. The statewide policy may be more stringent than the U.S. EPA’s regulations.
Alternative technologies and operational practices may help reduce or eliminate the marine impacts associated with OTC systems, but they also reduce power plant efficiency. York and Foster (2005) concluded that flow reduction and alternative cooling technologies, such as dry cooling and recirculating cooling, are the best options available, as “other entrainment and impingement reduction methods such as changes in intake location or physical or behavioral barriers have not proved to be feasible and/or effective for most power plants.” Further, “EPA’s own figures suggest that mandating recirculating cooling on all plants was highly cost-effective and would result in increased power costs to average residential customers of under a dollar per month” (Clean Air Task Force 2004). Ninety-five percent of the newly licensed power plants since 1996 use alternative cooling technologies (York and Foster 2005).
The future of OTC systems remains unclear; as a result, the proposed co-located plants face a large degree of uncertainty about future operations.
Significant reductions in water flow reduce the desalination plant’s feedwater supply and lead to more concentrated brine discharges. The desalination plant may also occupy the limited real estate needed to install alternative cooling technologies.
Co-location may create a regulatory loophole. It can be argued that the desalination plant will have no impacts above and beyond the OTC system and that any externalities associated with water intake, i.e., impingement and entrainment, are due to the OTC system. Once the desalination plants are built, however, they may then be used to justify continued use of OTC systems and allow the power plant operator to obtain a site-specific 316(b) exemption. Currently a power plant operator can obtain an exemption from the EPA’s 316(b) regulations if he or she can demonstrate that the cost of installing the new technology exceeds the benefits. If the forgone water supply is considered an additional cost of installing an alternative technology, the cost-benefit analysis may favour co-located plants. Thus, allowing desalination plants to piggyback off of power plants using OTC may prolong the life of this technology.
A desalination plant should not be an excuse to continue using an outdated, environmentally damaging technology. In the event that the SWRCB adopts strict OTC regulations, desalination plant operators must plan for the possibility that the co-located power plant will cease operation or reduce water flow significantly. In Huntington Beach, Poseidon has negotiated a contingency plan should the Huntington Beach Generating Station cease operation. If this occurs, Poseidon would have the option to buy the intake and discharge infrastructure but must acquire its own operating permits due to a change in project description (Poseidon Resources 2005a). This contingency, however, does not address the fact that there will no longer be cooling water available for brine dilution.
The EIR for the Carlsbad plant, also submitted by Poseidon Resources, offers no such contingency plan (Poseidon Resources 2005b). Because of the uncertainty associated with OTC systems, the effects of desalination must be assessed independently of the power plant. The California Desalination Task Force’s recommendation suggests that regulatory agencies are moving in this direction: “For proposed desalination facilities co-locating with power plants, analyse the impacts of the desalination facility operations apart from the operations of the co-located facilities. This will identify the impacts of the desalination facility operations when there are reductions in cooling water quantities” (CDWR 2003). The CCC has also adopted this approach.
In addition, co-location requires close coordination between two separate entities, the desalination plant and the power plant, thereby introducing additional uncertainty and cost into building and operating the desalination plant. For example, Cal Am, which is proposing to build a desalination plant at the Duke Energy power plant in Moss Landing, has not yet obtained a county permit to build a pilot plant because Duke Energy failed to comply with county wetland mitigation requirements. Duke Energy, which is now selling the site, was required to submit a wetland management plan and pay a $25,000 bond for removing an oil storage tank from their property. Duke Energy failed to pay the bond and must now update the bond assessment, a process that could take months to
A desalination plant should not be an excuse to continue using an outdated, environmentally damaging technology.
Cal Am officials feel that these delays are unwarranted given constructing the pilot plant will delay project completion.39 The uncertainty about future operations associated with OTC systems and coordination among separate entities suggests that permitting agencies and the public should apply a higher level of scrutiny to co-located desalination plants.
Environmental Justice Considerations
Most of the proposed desalination plants in California are likely to be located in existing industrial areas to take advantage of infrastructure and local resources. Because low-income populations tend to live in these areas, desalinations plants may have a disproportionate impact on these communities. These communities have traditionally borne significant airquality impacts from local facilities, higher exposure to noise and industrial chemicals, and truck traffic. When desalination facilities are built as co-located plants, the on-site energy plant may be forced to operate at a higher capacity or continuously, thereby increasing air-quality impacts.
Local communities may also suffer as a result of the desalination plant’s water-quality impacts; fish may have elevated levels of metals or other toxin, and those who rely on caught fish to supplement their protein intake may be adversely affected. Low-income and people of color may also bear disproportionate effects of increases in water rates (EJCW2005). The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water recommends several principles on environmental justice and water use:
• State legislatures should establish independent reviews of social, economic, and environmental inequities associated with current water rights and management systems.
• There should be independent review of the social and economic impacts of water development on local communities.
• Local public review and approval should be required for any proposal to introduce private control, management, or operation of public water systems.
• All water and land-use projects should be planned, implemented, and managed with participation from impacted community members.
• Actions are required to clean up pollution of water bodies upon which low-income populations rely for subsistence fishing (EJCW 2005).
Perhaps the greatest barrier to desalination remains its high economic cost compared to alternatives, including other sources of supply, improved wastewater reuse, and especially more efficient use and demand management. We do not believe that the economic evaluations of desalination commonly presented to regulators and the public adequately account for the complicated benefits and costs associated with issues of reliability, quality, local control, environmental effects, and impacts on development. In general, significant benefits and costs are often excluded from the costs presented publicly. California should pursue less costly, less environmentally damaging water-supply alternatives first.
Conclusion
Is desalination the ultimate solution to our water problems? No. Is it likely to be a piece of our water management puzzle? Yes. In the end, decisions about desalination developments will revolve around complex evaluations of local circumstances and needs, economics, financing, environmental and social impacts, and available alternatives.
We urge that such decisions be transparent, honest, public, and systematic.
ITG: With reports like this in the public domain why has Mr Holding gone ahead with the desal plants construction when it is obvious that it has critical consequences for the enviroment and the residents that live here ?
Will they only listen when its too late ?
I dont want my family or my enviroment to be unhealthy, so when will this government listen to these reports?....
GOLD 104.3 Melbourne Supporting Desalination
This is exactly what I mean about Melbourians not giving a rats ring about our enviroment or lives, just so they can water their gardens !
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Fury as desal company 'spies' on protesters
The Age MELISSA FYFE
March 14, 2010
THE state government is allowing the private consortium behind Victoria's controversial desalination plant to gather ''intelligence'' about the activities of protesters and share that information with police, according to a previously secret part of the $3.5 billion deal.
The revelation that private contractors would be ''relied upon'' to gather and disseminate intelligence has outraged the anti-desalination group, based in Wonthaggi.
Civil libertarians yesterday described the deal as improper, while the opposition has accused the government of encouraging the international consortium AquaSure to ''spy'' on Victorians.
The document, a previously unreleased part of the controversial memorandum of understanding between Victoria Police, AquaSure and the government, sets out the ''standard operating procedures'' for dealing with protests at the site. The document was released to the opposition under freedom-of-information laws.
Under the heading ''Intelligence'', the agreement says: ''The use of intelligence will play a significant role in enforcing the law at construction sites … [AquaSure] personnel, contractors and subcontractors will be relied upon to gather and disseminate intelligence to Victoria Police in a timely manner for the purposes of both proactive response and general enforcement.''
In another clause under ''Proactive response'' - which the police said yesterday was any investigation leading up to a protest - the agreement says the Department of Sustainability and Environment, AquaSure and Victoria Police will consider a ''joint operation'' on people who have been identified, through intelligence, ''to be involved in organising or conducting protest action''.
Such an operation, the document says, could include the resources of the Security Intelligence Group, a part of the police best known for counter-terrorism work, including infiltrating radical Islamist cells in Melbourne.
The group has previously been accused of infiltrating a range of community groups, including Animal Liberation.
Other documents reveal that the DSE has hired private security firm Shadow Protection Services to, among other tasks, ''monitor protester numbers and activities''.
The department's document, called the Civil Disruption Management Plan, says subcontractors will be the ''eyes and ears'' of the department in detecting coming protest action.
The revelations come after the controversy in December over the memorandum of understanding that allowed AquaSure access to Victoria Police's law enforcement data, including photos, video recordings and other police records. The Commissioner for Law Enforcement Data Security is continuing an investigation into the deal.
At the time, the government and police defended the memorandum, saying it was routine but badly worded and was necessary mostly for prosecuting protesters who broke the law and perhaps sharing video footage about protest tactics.
But the new documents reveal a strategy to gather intelligence on protesters before demonstrations happen.
Liberty Victoria president Michael Pearce, SC, said it was improper to be collecting intelligence from a private firm about what were likely to be lawful protests. ''These private companies are, if you like, becoming police informers,'' he said.
''The whole thing is very murky and seems to be part of a massive state government over-reaction to protests which are, for the most part, lawful and legitimate,'' Mr Pearce said. It was ''ludicrous'' to equate desalination protesters with terrorists by engaging a counter-terrorism outfit such as the Security Intelligence Group, he said.
Stephen Cannon, president of the anti-desalination group Watershed Victoria, said the community would be uncomfortable with the private consortium taking on the role of gathering intelligence. ''I find it astounding,'' he said. ''It is putting AquaSure on some sort of standing that we've never extended to a private consortium.''
The state opposition spokesman for scrutiny of government, David Davis, said Premier John Brumby had been caught spying and running intelligence operations with international corporations. ''They have been caught covering up, corrupting planning processes and now spying on Victorians,'' he said.
Government spokeswoman Emma Tyner said the government respected the right of all Victorians to protest.
How police gathered information was a matter for them, she said.
ITG: Send in your thoughts !
March 14, 2010
THE state government is allowing the private consortium behind Victoria's controversial desalination plant to gather ''intelligence'' about the activities of protesters and share that information with police, according to a previously secret part of the $3.5 billion deal.
The revelation that private contractors would be ''relied upon'' to gather and disseminate intelligence has outraged the anti-desalination group, based in Wonthaggi.
Civil libertarians yesterday described the deal as improper, while the opposition has accused the government of encouraging the international consortium AquaSure to ''spy'' on Victorians.
The document, a previously unreleased part of the controversial memorandum of understanding between Victoria Police, AquaSure and the government, sets out the ''standard operating procedures'' for dealing with protests at the site. The document was released to the opposition under freedom-of-information laws.
Under the heading ''Intelligence'', the agreement says: ''The use of intelligence will play a significant role in enforcing the law at construction sites … [AquaSure] personnel, contractors and subcontractors will be relied upon to gather and disseminate intelligence to Victoria Police in a timely manner for the purposes of both proactive response and general enforcement.''
In another clause under ''Proactive response'' - which the police said yesterday was any investigation leading up to a protest - the agreement says the Department of Sustainability and Environment, AquaSure and Victoria Police will consider a ''joint operation'' on people who have been identified, through intelligence, ''to be involved in organising or conducting protest action''.
Such an operation, the document says, could include the resources of the Security Intelligence Group, a part of the police best known for counter-terrorism work, including infiltrating radical Islamist cells in Melbourne.
The group has previously been accused of infiltrating a range of community groups, including Animal Liberation.
Other documents reveal that the DSE has hired private security firm Shadow Protection Services to, among other tasks, ''monitor protester numbers and activities''.
The department's document, called the Civil Disruption Management Plan, says subcontractors will be the ''eyes and ears'' of the department in detecting coming protest action.
The revelations come after the controversy in December over the memorandum of understanding that allowed AquaSure access to Victoria Police's law enforcement data, including photos, video recordings and other police records. The Commissioner for Law Enforcement Data Security is continuing an investigation into the deal.
At the time, the government and police defended the memorandum, saying it was routine but badly worded and was necessary mostly for prosecuting protesters who broke the law and perhaps sharing video footage about protest tactics.
But the new documents reveal a strategy to gather intelligence on protesters before demonstrations happen.
Liberty Victoria president Michael Pearce, SC, said it was improper to be collecting intelligence from a private firm about what were likely to be lawful protests. ''These private companies are, if you like, becoming police informers,'' he said.
''The whole thing is very murky and seems to be part of a massive state government over-reaction to protests which are, for the most part, lawful and legitimate,'' Mr Pearce said. It was ''ludicrous'' to equate desalination protesters with terrorists by engaging a counter-terrorism outfit such as the Security Intelligence Group, he said.
Stephen Cannon, president of the anti-desalination group Watershed Victoria, said the community would be uncomfortable with the private consortium taking on the role of gathering intelligence. ''I find it astounding,'' he said. ''It is putting AquaSure on some sort of standing that we've never extended to a private consortium.''
The state opposition spokesman for scrutiny of government, David Davis, said Premier John Brumby had been caught spying and running intelligence operations with international corporations. ''They have been caught covering up, corrupting planning processes and now spying on Victorians,'' he said.
Government spokeswoman Emma Tyner said the government respected the right of all Victorians to protest.
How police gathered information was a matter for them, she said.
ITG: Send in your thoughts !
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
