Discussion

Cleaning of Existing Waterways.

One of the obvious anti-ecologically sound elements in Melbourne is the pollution of the Yarra River. I would like to see a goal of cleaning up the Yarra to swimmable suitability and introducing more wildlife habitat in the urban sections of it. As well as pedestrian access into the water. These concepts should be extended to the bay beaches and docklands area as well. The goals set out in the section below seem light- but I don't know the technical standards for clean water.

Another item related to this is the attitude towards the water and beaches. There should be some type of easily accessible publicly available information on what is in the water and how safe it is at different locations. Changing the attitude from assumptions that the water is not clean to knowledge that it is being cleaned up.

A project I would like to see installed in Melbourne is a 'water cleaning island'. Where a mobile raft structure is anchored in the waterway. On the 'island' would be a collection of native plants with high polutant removing capablity. It would be both a piece of natural habitat and a piece of infrastructure to help clean the water.

ChelseaBortz -- 18 Jun 2008 - 12:40

Varied the text

Hi Rufus, have been able to use the recent valuable additions about water recycling, but have changed the wording around a little.

Under City as a Catchment, the alternative water sourcing opportunities sit as a mechanism (rather than a goal itself) to achieve the goals of saving water and improving water quality so we have tried to reflect this in the variations made.

-- SheridanBlunt - 21 May 2008 12:00

Graphics Available?

Hello, any chance that we could have the original graphic for the the Melbourne water usage in its original format (rather than jpeg) so we could create a to-be version?

-- ChrisPaine - 21 May 2008 20:18

Hi Chris,

We're working on a matching map at the moment as a way of expressing the water savings and improvements that we want to achieve by 2020. We're hoping it will communicate our goals really effectively. Are you keen to help out, or will we let you know when its ready?

Cheers...Sheridan Blunt, City of Melbourne.

-- SheridanBlunt - 23 May 2008 12:00

Hi Sheridan,

Happy to wait if you are in process of doing something.

-- ChrisPaine - 25 May 2008 21:02

Rainfall minus ( wastewater plus stormwater run off) = a negative number...

Also what are the thoughts on any water entering the Yarra/Port Phillip Bay? It would seem that the net requirements of CoMM? are greater than the total rainfall - should we not be aiming for a zero discharge to river and bay and 100% recycling for wastewater/stormwater?

On the other hand what would happen to the health of the Yarra if all the storm water discharges (however noxious they might be currently) were stopped?

-- ChrisPaine - 21 May 2008 20:18

Good points Chris,

CoM considers that the important challenge is for all water entering the waterways and bays to be treated. Not only does this improve the health of the waterways, but it also increases the viability for stormwater harvesting which is crucial for our water conservation goals.

At this stage we are not seeking to have zero discharge into the bay because in some situations this may not be the ideal environmental solution due to energy and material demands. Instead we are setting up a framework to ensure this full lifecycle assessment is considered for water saving projects. This can be seen with our Climate Neutral Water Savings Framework.

CoM is in the rare position of being at the 'bottom of the catchment', which means that it is has much less need to have environmental flows entering the waterways. It is considered that the flows entering from upstream will suffice in terms of flow needs for the Yarra and Maribyrnong.

-- SheridanBlunt - 23 May 2008 12:00

Thanks Sheridan,

Sounds quite reasonable - where can I review the Climate Neutral Water Savings Framework? A zero discharge policy would be probibitively expensive too. Which leads me to another point/question -

-- ChrisPaine - 25 May 2008 21:02

How much does the current shortfall cost?

What price should we/could we assign to reducing the City's need to gather water from alternative sources? Water seems to be a very political commodity - even though demand increases and supply dwindles - price does not go up (as far as I can see). Instead legislation is passed to ration the usage. Whereas many of the other environmental policies put forward here have definite potential economic benefits for the city, is recycling of water one of these? I would imagine that the cost of transporting water into the parks to allow them to function in periods of reduced rainfall is quite high - perhaps it would be worth showing (if this information is available) what sort of cost impact buying water from outside of the city has, compared to being able to recycle and reuse what is already within the city.

-- ChrisPaine - 25 May 2008 21:02

Embedded Water Use - Direct household use matters little

A study at Melbourne University (How much water did you eat today?, Tsang, 2004) showed that indirect water use through the food we eat is roughly 90% of the water used by the average citizen in Melbourne. Therefore, for any water savings effort to have an effect, it must concentrate on indirect water use.

In the city's like Melbourne and Sydney, we see people being literally killed over water disputes and when they are permitted to water. People are catching Legionella disease from recycled water in car washes. Worst of all, state governments are planning to spend billions of dollars on desalination plants to produce tiny amounts of drinking water. These billions of dollars if alternately invested in public health measures would save thousands of lives. All this, and there is plenty of water in Victoria, it is just wasted on producing low value food products, while being subsidised by the taxpayers.

66% of water used in Australia is in Agriculture, and 77% of that in Victoria is used making animal products such as milk and beef. The Dairy industry uses 5.5 times more water than Melbourne, while producing a tiny fraction of 1% of GDP. As use in the city decreases, use in these industries increases, and the environment (Murray Darling river system) still dies.

The average citizen in Melbourne could save more water by changing their diet (reducing dairy and meat consumption) than all the water savings through efficient toilets, short showers, buckets in the shower, etc. In fact, they can save 10 times more water.

If people in Melbourne wish to see water saved, they should insist on a rational pricing policy for water across all catchments and areas, that does not overly disadvantage Melbourne residents compared to those living outside it. Only if the same rules apply to all Victorians / Australians, will Melbournians see their efforts to reduce water come to effect, without being wasted by being distributed amongst irrigators to increase production.

-- BrucePoon - 13 Jun 2008 14:38

University of Melbourne Liveable Melbourne paper

Refer 4.3 - Possible initiatives

• Water recycling and economic incentives
• Feasibility studies
• Phasing in productive technologies

-- SueWilcox - 18 Jun 2008 16:01

Do you have any suggested actions?

Please add them here.