NATIONALS’ WATER SCHEME FOR CITY GAINS PARLIAMENTARY SUPPORT

The introduction of a water substitution target scheme, which will see an increased use of collected rainwater, recycled water and treated stormwater, has moved a step closer following action by Eastern Victoria MP, Peter Hall.

A primary aim of the motion put before – and agreed to – by the Upper House of the State Parliament is to reduce Melbourne’s consumption of potable water from the State’s water catchments.

Mr Hall was delighted that his motion was accepted by the Upper House, including Government members, and has now called on the State Government to implement the program.

“Effectively what the program does is commit Melbourne and Victoria to a reduction in potable water use through increased use of recycled water, rainwater and stormwater,” Mr Hall said.

“We have to have a more effective method of ensuring our water supplies are maintained and setting targets is one way of measuring that this happens. The Upper House of Parliament can see the benefits; surely it is not too great a leap for the Government to do the same.”

Under the motion put forward by Mr Hall, a Victorian water substitution target scheme would establish an overall target of substituting 30 per cent of Melbourne’s current water consumption with alternative water supplies by 2020, with interim targets of 10 per cent by 2010 and 20 per cent by 2015.

The targets would be reached by using alternative water supplies such as rainwater, recycled water or treated stormwater in non potable uses. Water substitution certificates would be developed and awarded for those who substitute rainwater and recycled water for potable water.

Under Mr Hall’s proposal, the Essential Services Commission (ESC) would administer the scheme including the issue, registration, transfer and surrender of water substitution certificates.

The program would also require Melbourne Water retailers and large water consumers using more than 10 million litres of water a year to surrender to the Essential Services Commission, at each of the target dates, water substitution certificates corresponding to their share of the overall water substitution target.

Mr Hall told Parliament in support of his motion: “This government is ploughing ahead with the augmentation of Melbourne’s water supply primarily by two means, the north–south pipeline and the desalination plant, seemingly without adequate consideration of alternatives. The position I put today is for an alternative mechanism by which other means of supplementing Melbourne’s water supply could be considered and accounted for.

“My passion on this is no different to that of many country Victorians — that is, we are incensed that this government places greater priority on Melbourne’s water needs than it does on those of country communities.”

Mr Hall said there was no clearer illustration of that than the proposed food bowl modernisation project, where the government says 225 gigalitres of savings can be achieved.

“The thing that incenses country people is the fact that the first 75 gigalitres will be coming to Melbourne. I would claim that the needs of people who live in northern Victoria are far greater than the needs of those who live in Melbourne, particularly when you have got storages like Eildon Reservoir, which I think is down to something like 15 per cent, and much of northern Victoria and country Victoria has been on severe water restrictions for many years.”

Mr Hall said the major problem with the Government’s approach, which included construction of a massive, multi-billion dollar desalination plant in South Gippsland, is that there are significantly better alternative ways to supplement Melbourne’s water supply and meet current and future needs.

“There is scope within what is currently available in the Melbourne catchment to significantly improve the efficiency with which water is harvested and used in Melbourne to accommodate its future growth needs,” he said.

He added that by the Government’s own admission, the plans to take water from northern Victoria and desalination are unnecessary.

“In its own paper, Our Water Our Future, the government says the potential yield from recycled water (from Melbourne) is somewhere between 95 and 225 gigalitres,” Mr Hall said.

“If recycling achieved the top end of that range, that would be enough to meet Melbourne’s future water needs. (A) fifth priority is to implement new and existing water conservation programs that the government suggested would generate about 110 gigalitres of water between 2008 and 2015. Again this is more than 50 per cent of Melbourne’s future water needs.

“If you add those projects up, that is about 450 gigalitres of new water identified in the government’s own document — twice as much as Melbourne is projected to need.

“Hence the claim that I have previously made: if this government were to implement in total its Our Water Our Future program, Melbourne would be awash with water.”
Outside Parliament, Mr Hall said following the success of his motion on water substitution, he would continue to push the Government towards a more self-sufficient Melbourne.