|
Posted for Hugh Gillies
In the past, humans carried on without oil, without metal, without plastic, without coal and the myriad other bits and pieces modern civilisation regards as the necessities of life. A little bit uncomfortable at times, no doubt, but still humans did exist and 'progress' on to arguably 'greater' things.
Life, however, has never done without two elements, and if you guessed O and H2O, then you are spot on.
And yet, strangely enough, these are the elements man is doing his best to stuff up the quality of, in the case of oxygen, and eliminate in the case of water. But both are taken for granted, and there seem to be quite a few around who think that there are vast bottomless, ever-supplying wells of H2O at the bottom of the Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine Dams.
At least that's the impression that one gets when reading most of the Letters to the Editor or replies to polls on the subject of Brisbane water. Not to mention all the grandiose schemes put up by Governments without a mention as to how these schemes will come to fruition, or even be started within the given time frames, if indeed there are any, without the necessary supply of water. It will be great to pump re-used water to the power stations BUT, without rain, where is the water going to come from in the first place to re-use and pump? Will there be enough left when the mooted $20 million feasibility study for the above is completed? It will be great to have a $1.5 billion traffic tunnel in Brisbane BUT a shame there may well be nobody around to use it. Those bottomless wells are going to be working overtime for there is nowhere else for our usable water supply to come from, unless it is manufactured using the raw product which is readily available, the sea.
If any indication is given as to the lack of realisation of the parlous state our area is entering into it is the undeniable impression given by, not only the 'decision makers', but the general public, that there are unlimited choices available as to how to, at personal convenience, conserve and re-use water, and that there is plenty of time to sit back and argue over, discuss the pros and cons of, and then form innumerable committees to report back to 'them' who will produce innumerable papers of different colours to be used as toilet paper as the last water closet gasps its last flush and the earth closet comes back into its own.
I have written in an article entitled "Queensland – the State of Denial" that:
"I believe that an immediate start on the solving of the Brisbane and environs water crisis can be best, indeed only, be brought about by the bipartisan appointment of a suitable a-political, independent person who would be given
over-riding authority to co-opt, co-ordinate and direct all resources and policies necessary to put our water supply on a sound and sustainable footing."
That this is the only way to go is backed up presently by the poor spectacle of various Councils squabbling as to what will be THEIR watering hours
2
and, predictably, upon the announcement of the re-used water pipe-line to the power stations, the cry from the Lockyer of "What about the farmers!!?"
Leadership and authority has to be established. Personal inconveniences and perceived hardships have to be endured and overcome because when survival may become the name of the game, little else matters.
WATER OF LUXURY is water in abundance, the product of benevolent Gods and overflowing clouds, of everlasting wells and bores and bountiful aquifers. It is doubtful, given the lemming-like rush to concentrated dense population, that our cities and their environs will ever wallow again in water of luxury. We will come to accept that WATER OF REALITY has become the normal way of life, whereby we will all have to make personal sacrifices of water usage, inconvenient or distressing as they may be, for our society and the maintenance of our water supplies. A plentiful supply of water must be achieved and maintained at all cost, even to the extent of the population of an area being limited to the ability of the area to supply its population. To use an Australian bush analogy; the number of sheep or cattle you can run on a property is governed by the amount of water you can supply to sustain them at any given time.
AT ALL COST. A phrase to raise the hackles of the bean counters, all those who see everything in economic terms, they of the tunnel (that word again) vision. There are those who talk of more dams as a panacea for all our water problems. Dams are great for they not only can conserve water for many life-sustaining purposes but can provide venues for many forms of relaxation. They are great when they are built and when they are full, which means, in the present Brisbane and environs context, they are long-term projects. You just don't plonk a dam wall down and think you are going to fill an area a couple of times the size of Sydney Harbour with water overnight. It may take months, even years to fill after construction. Who knows? And they do cost money. However it is not the money cost that is the major disincentive for dam construction. It is the cost of time and, in the present Brisbane and environs context, time is something that cannot be afforded.
DESALINATION of sea-water for domestic and commercial use is practised in many diverse areas, including North America, for example Key West, the Middle East, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and Kangaroo Island in South Australia. The recent Carr Labor Government in N S W gave the go-ahead for the construction of a plant to service the needs of Sydney. The Brisbane City Council has stated in a glossy brochure that "Desalination has the potential to provide the region with a more constant and reliable water supply, particularly in drought conditions." Unfortunately, vacuous words.
For a city such as Brisbane the establishment of a desalination plant would have a large plus going for it. The raw product required to be treated is right on its doorstep in an unlimited quantity. Another plus would be that, unlike a dam, which upon completion may not immediately store sufficient water, a desalination plant, when completed, would produce useable water immediately.
For every argument for the establishment of a desalination plant there will always be one against. However, in arguing for or against, the end consequence of a decision is the key factor in the discussion. Taking into consideration the many factors involved in siting a plant, plus ecological and aesthetic aspects, power requirements and any other one of a number of aspects that could be seen to disturb and upset the status quo of an area, and let us not forget cost, one must ask what will be the consequences if these aspects can over-ride the establishment of a plant. The consequences will be stark and simple if there is a reliance on sufficient rains falling in the catchment areas within a relatively short period and it does not come. Regardless of conservation programmes. re-cycling, etc., which are feel-good-stop-gap measures at best, water supplies WILL continue to diminish and the Brisbane region WILL run dry. Given that most other centres of any significant and substantial size are going through the same water shortage as Brisbane, and therefore that outside replenishment is not possible, and given the population of the Brisbane area and the fact that it would be logistically impossible to bring in sufficient water if it were available, the end result, as far as human life is concerned (forget about the animals), would far exceed any anticipated terror attacks and may well be in the same league as an avian 'flu pandemic.
One can only hope against hope this does not happen,
OR IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
So what of cost? At all cost? I feel the answer is very simple; there can be no consideration of cost.
The Shoaiba Desalination Plant in Saudi Arabia, one of the, if not the largest in the world, has an annual output of 150 million cubic metres of water (I cubic metre=1 000 litres) at an estimated total project cost of $(US)1.06 billion. Kerry Packer could handle this on his own, and the Australian Government hands out amounts like this in overseas aid, no problem, plus the Queensland Government when talking of tunnels, stadiums, bridges and the health of the people and itself etc.
To those whose world revolves around costs and economic viability I would ask:
HOW MUCH IS A LITRE OF WATER WORTH IF YOUR HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN,
"HOW MUCH IS A LITRE OF WATER WORTH IF YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE DYING OF THIRST?"
Unfortunately. I feel that time for Brisbane has been allowed to run out.
Hugh V Gillies
Brisbane October 2005
|
Comments
RSS feed for comments to this post