A state parliamentary committee report this week said Melbourne needs no more dams and water storages.
Instead, the committee proposes more costly measures to supplement supply and to restrain demand.
Accepting guidance dutifully provided by ministerial officials and advisers, the committee's ALP majority (surprise, surprise!) swung behind the irresponsible policies adopted by the Brumby Government.
Those policies are respectable only in comparison with the calamitous approach of Steve Bracks's no-extra-water former minister John Thwaites.
It has been two dozen years since a new dam has been built to supply Melbourne. During that time the city's population has grown by almost one-third. It is little wonder that, in spite of draconian measures forcing us to use less water, dams are only 25 per cent full. Even without the drought, water supply would be stressed.
Pride of place in augmenting supply for the committee's ALP members went to the desalination plant. Weighing in at $3.1 billion, water from this would be five times the cost of supplies from a new dam, while also contributing masses of those notorious greenhouse gases.
Supplementing the proposed desalination plant is water from the northern irrigation area brought in via the controversial Sugarloaf pipeline.
A raft of trendy but costly supply enhancement measures also was promoted. These include mandatory backyard tanks and schemes involving sewage recycling and stormwater harvesting.
These approaches carry costs comparable with the proposed desalination white elephant.
Labour and Coalition committee members all favour increasing the regulations on water demand that have brought lower per capita water usage over recent years.
It seems that even in the unlikely event of a Liberal-National government we must therefore look forward to more dry sports fields, parched gardens, showers that don't work, and car washing restraints.
The Government members who formed the majority on the committee heard what they wanted to hear.
When told that building a dam is expensive, the politicians did not ask "compared with what?"
They turned deaf ears to advice that a new dam is the cheapest solution and that there is an abundance of water to fill a reservoir.
They eagerly listened to those who told them global warming would mean reduced water supplies, a scenario that, if true, would logically require even more urgent action to build new storages.
They sucked in the usual spurious notions that a new dam would threaten ecology, wildlife and something called "carbon transport".
Government members have demonised new dams for so long that they are poleaxed by the spectre of a koala-suited demonstrator chained to machinery further threatening the vulnerability of their seats in Green-besieged inner city electorates.
They and the Opposition members also were anxious to avoid being seen to support measures that might divert unused water from Gippsland to Melbourne, as though Gippsland somehow owned that water.
Victorians deserve better representation than they are getting on this matter. Long-term supplies of water have become hostage to short-term electoral pressures. Instead of our elected representatives carefully considering what plans are best for the state's consumers we have policies driven by mysticism and narrow sectional interest.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment