Bob Carr's legacy

[scblack]

More shit continues to flow through from Bob Carr's 10 years of mismanagement of NSW.

I said at the time he must be jumping ship, before the shit hit the fan - and my thoughts then have been vindicated, and shown to be true.

Other than toll roads, the Carr government has added NOTHING to NSW in their 10 years. And even then the toll roads are a f**k-up.

This today in the SMH:
http://smh.com.au/news/national/the-great-carr-crash/2006/02/08/1139379573532.html

The Great Carr Crash
By Anne Davies State Political Editor
February 9, 2006

THE State Government will squander $120 million on its desalination plant debacle. It is yet another of Bob Carr's costly legacies for his embattled successor, Morris Iemma.

THE Iemma Government will outlay at least $10 million to compensate the two consortiums bidding to build the stalled desalination plant, part of $120 million it will still spend on the project even though it has been shelved indefinitely.

This is the latest in a series of policy U-turns as the Premier, Morris Iemma, tries to grapple with the political legacy of his predecessor, Bob Carr.

The spending on the plant will raise new questions about Labor's competence in managing the state, especially as the Government is now trying to find savings of at least $300 million in an audit of expenditure.

"It's an F Troop exercise," said a member of one consortium, referring to the 1960s TV show about bungling US cavalrymen.

The Government has been under enormous political pressure over the plant at Kurnell, announced by Mr Carr during a $100,000 swan song trip to Dubai, just two weeks before he resigned last August. Two months later he went to work for Macquarie Bank, one of the biggest players in private-state infrastructure.

Mr Iemma has since battled to defend desalination against a growing tide of opposition from environmental groups, scientists, commentators and residents.

Yesterday he announced he was putting the plant on hold indefinitely - it will be revived only if dam levels fall to 30 per cent - thanks to the sudden "discovery" in recent weeks of two large aquifers under Sydney.

But about $120 million will still be spent on the project, including buying the site and building a pilot plant, said the Utilities Minister, Carl Scully.

That amount would be enough to pay for about 1200 extra police or 1800 new mental health beds for a year, or to install flashing lights at all school crossings.

Mr Iemma said yesterday: "The people were giving us the message that they wanted us to explore and continue exploring alternatives and recycling, and we've never stopped looking for those alternatives."

The Herald reported in 2003 that the Government had its drought expert panel exploring for aquifers, and a report in 1994 noted the existence of a large aquifer near Kangaloon. But scientists warned yesterday that large-scale water extraction must be carefully studied to ensure it does not damage creeks and springs.

Mr Iemma has also ditched the plan to raise the Tallowa Dam by seven metres - equally unpopular with South Coast residents - which was to have supplemented Sydney's water supply.

In support of desalination, Mr Carr and Mr Iemma had repeatedly argued that Sydney needed a new source of water which was not rain-dependent, and that desalination was the only viable option.

The federal parliamentary secretary on water, Malcolm Turnbull, said the debacle was the result of policy inaction on the city's water supply following Mr Carr's decision to scrap a new dam a decade ago. "The tragedy in NSW is that it's not just water; it's that so little has been done on anything in the last 10 years."

Since coming to office, Mr Iemma has had to deal with a series of Carr legacies, including the Cross-City Tunnel, persistent problems with the train network, growing traffic congestion and a series of riots and assaults which have raised questions about the adequacy of police numbers.

[Cave Dweller]

Yawn.........

Come on, the libs are all for privatisation and your complaining about paying for private roads? This is the system you want is it not? IA user pays system, don't like it, don't use it, don't pay, fairly simple.

I fail to see how a liberal state government would be any better at providing public services, which is what i think your implying.

Its not like the federal government is a role model of how to not waste huge amounts of money. Compared to a $6 billion ID card and a usless war in Iraq, $120 million really is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun :) ), and at least they will own some land and a small de-salination plant at the end of it.

[cam-o]

I'm struggling to understand why the desalination plant idea is so unpopular? Our quality media keeps calling it the highy unpopular/contentious plant, yet never tell us (apart from Malcolm Turnbull) who's actually against it?
The 'new' aquifers they are claiming will sort out the states water problems for 3 years. Sooooo, what's going to happen in 3 years?
Seems very short sighted, why don't they keep building the thing anyway, it'd probably take 3 years to be fully operational anyway? :confused:

[NCR600]

I don't think anyone is against it... they just don't want it in their back yard!

Anyways, the NSW libs can't even organise their own party let alone the state. Imagine the mess we'd be in if they were in power.

[Cave Dweller]

I'm struggling to understand why the desalination plant idea is so unpopular? Our quality media keeps calling it the highy unpopular/contentious plant, yet never tell us (apart from Malcolm Turnbull) who's actually against it?
The 'new' aquifers they are claiming will sort out the states water problems for 3 years. Sooooo, what's going to happen in 3 years?
Seems very short sighted, why don't they keep building the thing anyway, it'd probably take 3 years to be fully operational anyway? :confused:

It is unpopular, mainly to the people who live in kernel, and to people who care about the enironment. My major gripe is all that raw salt going back into kernel, along with the fact is chews heaps of energy.

Without the desalination plant the state government is already talking about building a couple of new COAL fired plants. Too much pollution adding to the original problem of global warming / reduced rainfall.

Agreed, the under ground lakes are temporary and very short sighted.

The best option is to recycle water. It seems so stupid to pump almost clean waste water into the ocean, mix it with salt them extract it again with a desalination plant.

Apparently us people in Sydney are too good for recycled water, which is stupid, alot of the worlds major cities use recycled water. Big deal i say, the water you drink from Warragamba has animal shit in it anyway :D

[johnny]

Yawn.........

Come on, the libs are all for privatisation and your complaining about paying for private roads? This is the system you want is it not? IA user pays system, don't like it, don't use it, don't pay, fairly simple.

I fail to see how a liberal state government would be any better at providing public services, which is what i think your implying.

Its not like the federal government is a role model of how to not waste huge amounts of money. Compared to a $6 billion ID card and a usless war in Iraq, $120 million really is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun :) ), and at least they will own some land and a small de-salination plant at the end of it.
I think you're drawing a pretty long bow there. I'm for neither of the two major parties, but Carr has left quite a legacy. Pointing out faults doesn't therefore promote by default the opposition. It's merely pointing out a fault. Also there is very little nexus between state and federal parties. Even when you have the same party in office at both levels they are prone to bickering. Because of the constitution state and federal will always be mildly in competition with each other over allocation of resources etc. I don't think comparing or aligning the two is a very valid position. Of course you know my position concerning the current federal gov't.

As for the desal plants, as far as I know (which is not far at all) the desal plants have high evergy requirements to run don't they? This means that the polution created from the energy required will offset the gains. As I said, I'm not fully up to date, so correct me if I'm wrong. Personally I'd rather see water recycling like that of Paris, London, NY etc.

[scblack]

I'm struggling to understand why the desalination plant idea is so unpopular? Our quality media keeps calling it the highy unpopular/contentious plant, yet never tell us (apart from Malcolm Turnbull) who's actually against it?
The 'new' aquifers they are claiming will sort out the states water problems for 3 years. Sooooo, what's going to happen in 3 years?
Seems very short sighted, why don't they keep building the thing anyway, it'd probably take 3 years to be fully operational anyway? :confused:
The desalination plant would use a MASSIVE amount of electricity to do the job outlined. Locals are dead against the idea - most if not all of them. I'm against it, and I'm not a local.

The problem is, nothing has been added or updated really in Sydney's water supply for about 40 years, since the 60's. A quick to implement measure, using massive power is not a well thought out solution.

The acquifers can supplement water for up to three years (if needed) if droughts last that long. Then it needs five years to re-top itself up. But like now, they could supplement water from them for a year, then leave them to top-up when dam levels are at better levels. It does not need to be fully drawn on for three years (presently).

[johnny]

I would also like to see rain water utilised far more than it is currently. So much of it just goes down the drain.

[scblack]

Yawn.........

Come on, the libs are all for privatisation and your complaining about paying for private roads? This is the system you want is it not? IA user pays system, don't like it, don't use it, don't pay, fairly simple.

I fail to see how a liberal state government would be any better at providing public services, which is what i think your implying.

Its not like the federal government is a role model of how to not waste huge amounts of money. Compared to a $6 billion ID card and a usless war in Iraq, $120 million really is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun :) ), and at least they will own some land and a small de-salination plant at the end of it.

Meet my ignore list.

[cam-o]

As for the desal plants, as far as I know (which is not far at all) the desal plants have high evergy requirements to run don't they? This means that the polution created from the energy required will offset the gains. As I said, I'm not fully up to date, so correct me if I'm wrong. Personally I'd rather see water recycling like that of Paris, London, NY etc.

I saw a doco a few months ago on Nat Geo channel (I love that channel) about desal plants. It's true they were once extremely energy hungry, however the latest generation ones are significantly better due to a new valve design that allows the waste water pressure to power much of the plant via a turbine. The really clever part is that the turbine also sends the waste water back through the filters many times, meaning the percentage of useful water skyrocketed. From memory they got it from around 30% up to the high 80s and manged to get the cost to within 10-15% of the cost of traditional water production.

I too like the idea of recycling plants, but I'll support desal over "lets keep bunging holes in the ground and hoping like hell"

[johnny]

I saw a doco a few months ago on Nat Geo channel (I love that channel) about desal plants. It's true they were once extremely energy hungry, however the latest generation ones are significantly better due to a new valve design that allows the waste water pressure to power much of the plant via a turbine. The really clever part is that the turbine also sends the waste water back through the filters many times, meaning the percentage of useful water skyrocketed. From memory they got it from around 30% up to the high 80s and manged to get the cost to within 10-15% of the cost of traditional water production.
That sounds quite promising!

I too like the idea of recycling plants, but I'll support desal over "lets keep bunging holes in the ground and hoping like hell"
Agreed!

[Cave Dweller]

The problem is, nothing has been added or updated really in Sydney's water supply for about 40 years, since the 60's. A quick to implement measure, using massive power is not a well thought out solution.

Not true.

Spillway addition to Warragamba, new pumps at the base of Warragamba to pump more water out, various large sewage treatment constructions (Mulgoa, Wallacia and Silverdale, over $65 million there) etc etc. I could go on. There are major costs in repairing existing infrastructure as well.

There is no where else to really build another large dam, and 10 years ago the dam was full, it was actually over flowing and flooded parts of penrith. How was anyone to know we were heading into a long protracted drought and should start building another dam?


I think you're drawing a pretty long bow there. I'm for neither of the two major parties, but Carr has left quite a legacy. Pointing out faults doesn't therefore promote by default the opposition. It's merely pointing out a fault. Also there is very little nexus between state and federal parties. Even when you have the same party in office at both levels they are prone to bickering. Because of the constitution state and federal will always be mildly in competition with each other over allocation of resources etc. I don't think comparing or aligning the two is a very valid position. Of course you know my position concerning the current federal gov't.

I was merely pointing out that huge wasting of public funds and privatising assets / privatising new infrastructure is not confined to either party.

Meet my ignore list.

Well, besides being a dick was there any need to post that? How will my life ever go on with this knowledge. Get over yourself.......

[johnny]

Not true.

Spillway addition to Warragamba, new pumps at the base of Warragamba to pump more water out, various large sewage treatment constructions (Mulgoa, Wallacia and Silverdale, over $65 million there) etc etc. I could go on. There are major costs in repairing existing infrastructure as well.

There is no where else to really build another large dam, and 10 years ago the dam was full, it was actually over flowing and flooded parts of penrith. How was anyone to know we were heading into a long protracted drought and should start building another dam?Don't get me wrong, I know very little about this, but isn't one of the major issues with water the population growth of Sydney? I know the drought has certainly compounded the situation, but I think demand has a lot to play in this as well. Could the question be asked that this trend should have been forecasted years ago and planned for in a better way? As I said, I'm nopt sure, so I ask the question.



I was merely pointing out that huge wasting of public funds and privatising assets / privatising new infrastructure is not confined to either party.
Yeah, fair enough I agree with that. I think the comparrison to what the Federal Libs have done was a bit left field......as much as I DO dislike them and what they do!

[Cave Dweller]

Don't get me wrong, I know very little about this, but isn't one of the major issues with water the population growth of Sydney? I know the drought has certainly compounded the situation, but I think demand has a lot to play in this as well. Could the question be asked that this trend should have been forecasted years ago and planned for in a better way? As I said, I'm nopt sure, so I ask the question.

Yes, this is true.

But as you know these things take time to get through the political mill, especially anything that will cost money in this day and age of cost cutting. A sure election loser is to raise rates to pay for these things.

All infrastructure, be it state or federal in Australia is starting to fall into the same trap. Successive governments from both sides have not spent the money to upgrade infrastructure required to make sure things continue to go smoothly. It is now, and in the next 20 years, that it will all fall apart and require massive re-investment. Good for us engineers who are in short supply :D There was a really good article about local government in the SHM not long ago explaining all about lack on investment.

But back to water, progress is being made. Rain water tanks in all new houses, water restrictions and to some extent looking into the desalination plant has bought the issue to attention of alot of people who otherwise probably wouldn't care.

I think recycling water is the only long term solution that is viable. All the others just provide short term solutions. There is no where else to build a dam, the blue mountains is now world heratige listed, you can't just go flooding vallys any more.

Desalination is expensive and pollutes.

Underground water is a bad idea, the base of Sydney is already crumbly sandstone, i wouldn't want to be removing the water and allowing it to compact and crumble.

No easy solutions to this problem i am afraid.

[robracer]

I would also like to see rain water utilised far more than it is currently. So much of it just goes down the drain.

This is so true..... we need more green methods for water capture & storage! there has been many projects in the west utilising grey water & recycling for general water usage. In the hawkesbury many communities live day to day using tank water no mains in sight! & ther use of recycled water works!
I have many mates on tank water (+ I am about to move onto acarage with tank water only that will be a test :eek: ) & it seems the current conditions just makes them wiser with their water usage & storage.

[scblack]

I would also like to see rain water utilised far more than it is currently. So much of it just goes down the drain.
New homes and estates out west of Sydney do to some extent. One of my workmates has her front garden, and toilets using a recycled water (mains) system, rather than the good water which runs into showers and all other taps. She is in a brand new home at Parklea.

[Binaural]

Some more information on our water options from the SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-myth-of-sydney-being-drought-proof/2006/02/08/1139379570328.html)

The main points are:
1. Rising temperatures and falling rainfall in next 65 years may threaten survival of the city long term.
2. The new aquifiers can supply about 1/20th of our yearly supply, i.e. bugger all, and may take years to refill.
3. Sydney is far from drought proof, whatever the politicians are sayiing.

Light on solutions but not a bad article.

[wombat]

I'm no expert, but during the last 12 months at uni I've spent a fair amount of time studying issues relating to Sydney's water supply (as part of the sustainable design major) and there's a few things to comment on here:

Firstly, the desal plant is very a contentious topic amongst the scientific community. It is quite widely accepted that there are environmental damages caused by the plant, but how extensive and how widespread they are is hotly debated. When you think about it though, if you're pulling all that salt out of the water it's going to seriously unbalance the ecosystems at least in the existing areas.

Recycling is most likely a much better option, sadly it's been demonized by those who are against it and put forward the "you'll be drinking sewage" argument. Reality check people: water isn't created out of nowhere, it's been through various animals hundreds of times. It's just gone through a natural filtering cycle, in the same way that recycled water will be artifically recycled.

By far our best option though is that which robracer mentioned: better use of urban rainfall. There's SOOOOO much water fallsing into peoples gutters and flowing straight into the storm water system that it is disgusting! Not only is it wasted water, but storm water outlets are inevitably an environmental disaster in themselves. If we could harness the water we currently waste we could solve two problems at once. As for the viability of tank water as a primary water supply, well I've lived off it for the last 19 years or so and I can tell you that it is perfectly practical, in fact it evens help to reduce water wastage.

Actually that's something else that gets my blood boiling: people who waste water. Even Sydney Water's concept of "effecient household water usage" is skewed, and incredibly wasteful. The fact is that we live in a country which naturally has less than optimum rainfall, and trends suggest that the shortage is only going to become worse. So if I see you hosing your driveway, or doing something as equally braindead, expect me to come up and spend as much time as I can spare yelling my fucking head off.

Ahem, so yes, I think that there is an absolute raft of changes needed to address our water supply issues, but number one should be trying to change people's water use mentality.



PS: If you're interested in the history and usage of water tanks, and the rise of the pipe paradigm, just say so, I'll see if I can dig up the thesis I used as a reference last year, it was awesome.

[zids]

Ok, I really do not know much about this topic, however, i do believe the government needs to put more consideration into the recycling of water. Before I go on, I would like to ask a few questions, firstly:
Has the Government ever put forward the idea of recycling water?
How much would recycling some or all of Sydney's water cost in comparison to the desel plant?
Is it possible to use this "dirty" (yes i know its perfectly clean) water just for toilets, washing etc:?

I have however spoken to my geography teacher about this topic, and she is very opposed to the desel plant. She believes that recycling water is the only viable long term solution, as a desel plant, would a) use large amounts of energy - pollution b) destroy lots of our environment and posibly wipe out entire eco-systems (particularly those in the salt reduced water).
I also believe that it is unrealistic to force people to use water tanks in their houses, though it should be encouraged. I have been to many houses and stayed in houses that use water tanks as grey water (for gardening plants etc: ) and for use in toilets. I did not notice any difference what so ever. With my current understanding I believe recycling water is the ebst answer for sydney.

[wombat]

I also believe that it is unrealistic to force people to use water tanks in their houses, though it should be encouraged. I have been to many houses and stayed in houses that use water tanks as grey water (for gardening plants etc: ) and for use in toilets. I did not notice any difference what so ever. With my current understanding I believe recycling water is the ebst answer for sydney.
Why is it unrealistic? There are currently thousands of households in my area who live exclusively off tank water, and more who live off a tank which is filled by a bore. Modern tanks have come a long way from the days of the implementation of the first water works and there are basically zero sanitation issues, provided you observe some basic (and I mean basic) maitenance.

Water recycling can definately be successful, but adpoting localised tanks as primary water sources, and supplementing them with the mains water supply would be an even bigger step in the right direction IMO.

[scblack]

I also believe that it is unrealistic to force people to use water tanks in their houses, though it should be encouraged.

Why would that be unrealistic? As Wombat has said MANY use it NOW.

A decent tank and catchment system will cost less than $1,000 - a very realistic amount for a householder to spend. Less than an airconditioning system.