I was invited recently to start writing for Crikey, an invitation I was most happy to accept. Among other things, it’s a chance to stretch my writing skills in the direction of reportage and analysis, as well as just opinion – though there are some commonalities between blogging and the distinct Crikey mode of journalism, there are some differences as well in my view. Anyway, my first piece for Crikey was in today’s email. With permission, it’s reproduced over the fold.
10. Queensland: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
Mark Bahnisch in Brisbane writes:
The CIA predicted that the politics of water would be one of the defining issues of the 21st century. Although often decried as a backwater itself, Queensland is leading the way in making this prediction come true. SEQ Councils argue over water restrictions and a proposed water grid, Toowoomba is riven by blog wars about recycled water, and Peter Beattie’s health woes are now largely overshadowed by coverage of controversies over two new dams.
Conflicts about natural resources are often perceived as being amenable to technical and scientific resolution. But science might be the least important factor in public policy decisions on water. Water, for SEQ residents, is now literally a parish pump issue. People worry about how long they shower, public fountains are drained, and commercial TV news shows abound with stories of intrepid gardeners laboriously carrying buckets out to their roses.
Nationals leader Lawrence Springborg can’t take a trick on this issue, as with many others. The Nationals are torn between promising to build dams elsewhere and claiming the scientific evidence doesn’t add up. Why build more dams when water isn’t falling in the catchments?
But Peter Beattie is providing an object lesson in how to look like a leader. A poll conducted for The Australian shows that 82% of respondents want more dams. The Greens and other dam opponents have to try to communicate a complex message about water grids and recycling. But they also risk looking like NIMBYs.
Meanwhile Beattie plays the card of community consultation, “rescuing” Rathdowney residents at the last minute. Beattie also knows that the voters who count, those living in parched Brisbane, want to see something done. And they don’t want to hear about the emotive issue of drinking recycled water. So he sends a clear message out, while opponents spray mixed signals all over the place. The jobs created in construction won’t hurt either. The Beattie Government’s response may well be a triumph of short-term and show over science. But the short term is an election which must be held in the next year.
If the response to the water crisis is going to be science and evidence driven rather than politically manipulated, anti-dam crusaders are going to have to get smarter in distilling a simple message.
Nice one, Mark.
I think the point about different genres is interesting. I see this as more analytical than polemical – a difference with (much, but not all) blogging.
Thanks, Kim. I think with this piece part of the point was to inform Crikey readers outside Qld of what was going on and put the argument in some context.
And it did, Mark. Nice piece. When I was in Brisbane last there was some talk of Toowoomba recycling its sewage as drinking water. Any word on this?
Big fight up there, weathergirl. Interestingly, as I say in the article, a lot of it has been mobilised by blogs. The Council is now putting its decision to go with recycled water to a referendum.
Congratulations on gaining a new readership, Mark.
This is indeed the key question, and no matter how much people don’t like hearing it in SEQ or Sydney, I think recycling will ultimately have to be the answer.
It doesn’t seem to do the Londoners too much harm, after all.
Indeed, tigtog. All the evidence is that the water is safer than usual tap water because of the additional effort that goes into purifying it.
Oh, and thanks weathergirl and tigtog!
Good one Mark
A donnybrook is brewing here on the Central Coast with regards to water. Dam levels are far worse than in Sydney though our demand is being met from the Hunter. Temporary desalinations plants are planned, the council is producing dodgy polls in acceptance of water recycling and bizarre figures on the expense of installing a water tank. It is all on.
The one thing I can’t figure is why the councils here and elsewhere do no promote water tanks. While little rain falls in the catchment area a lot falls in the coastal fringe. It is not that expensive (contrary to inflated figures bandied about) to put a water tank in to help with the garden and similar water needs. A 1000 litre tanks fills in about two good showers if you have the guttering feeding into the tank.
Mark:
Crikey! That’s good news!
Good concise item of the water issues.:-)
I think it is important for Australia to know that Toowoomba has other options. At least 4 viable one and they have had the rapid review from the State Government and dismissed. London is not a fair example as it is not being feed into a dam as ours is and it could only be considered bad practice at best.
We are to be the “LIVING LABORITY” for the rest of Australia. These are the words taken from the NWC submission of our council!
The UK bottled water market has almost tripled (179 per cent growth) in volume over the past four years, with volumes last year topping 2 billion litres compared to just 720 million in 1998. But the market is showing no signs of reaching saturation, with volume set to reach 4 billion litres by 2007.
Those living in London seem most worried about tap water quality. Broadly speaking the further north you go the less concerned people are about the tap water.
I wouldn’t say London water has done no harm to people – a wee bit hard to prove one way or the other isn’t it? Speak to most people in Toowoomba here that come from London and they will tell you – “don’t drink the water”!
Using London as an example to us is a bit silly to me – it has a population of 7.3 million in a country which has 63 million people and an area of 243,000 square kilometers as opposed to Queenslands 1,852,000 square kilometers and population of 4 million. There is not many spots in England where it would be viable for dams or any sort of decent water infrastructure and Londons average annual rainfall is 585mm as opposed to Toowoomba’s 955mm – let alone the much higher rainfall in coastal areas.
Lets not forget the importance of dams and where we would be now if we didn’t have them. There is no need to drink recycled effluent in this country – we have the means and options not to and as for the comment – “Why build more dams when water isn’t falling in the catchments?” It will and where do you think this water you talk about recycling comes from anyway? – we don’t have a Thames river you know! Our water comes from our dams and the artesian basins – so without rain – crikey – we wouldn’t have any water to recycle would we?
That people drink bottled water tells you a lot about the connection between reality and most people’s knowledge/perceptions about water quality.
Isn’t it funny, how things are ignored until an urban area jumps up and down about the same issue? Until then its just agrarian socialism and dismissed as whinging.
Personally I wouldn’t have a problem with recycled water as long as it was done properly. My only issue would be the costings and how that affects the taxpayers.
Isn’t it funny how water doesn’t seem to be an issue untill there is a drought and then all the water recycling mongers come out of hiding trying to ram it down our throats literally as an end to all our problems!
Water has an always been an issue in Australia. It’s just that now, as with the oil situation, people can no longer hide from it.