Toowoomba City Council YES CASE Councillors Named

TOOWOOMBA Mayor Dianne Thorley knew nine months before a water recycling poll that the result would be a no vote, she told a senator inquiry into wate

2006-08-03T00:41:00.000-07:00

The Mayor still went ahead and wasted 1.2million dollars on a poll she admitted was to fail WHY?
And why was ratepayers money wasted ? It could have provided up to 500 property's fitted with rain water tanks this would have been a positive outcome but this money was swallowed up by consultants and media advertising and council giveaway's to induce votes.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20002049-3102,00.html
By Amanda Gearing 'No' vote always on cards Article from: Courier Mail 3rd AUG 06
August 03, 2006 12:00am
TOOWOOMBA Mayor Dianne Thorley knew nine months before a water recycling poll that the result would be a no vote, she told a senator inquiry into water policy yesterday.Speaking in Toowoomba at the first public hearings of the inquiry yesterday, Cr Thorley said she knew when she was told there would be a referendum, that it would be a train wreck and the community would reject recycling sewage for drinking water.
"I always believed it was impossible to sell to the community," she said.
Cr Thorley told assembled senators that the project could not have succeeded without millions of dollars being spent in education over several years.
The only way to gain acceptance of recycling technology was to build a demonstration plant for people to see working over a long period of time, she said.
Cr Thorley's plan had been to build the advanced treatment plant and run it for several years, conducting education programs and then to hold a referendum seeking community approval for adding the water to the drinking supply.
The councillor said her ideal vision for the future was for all residents to have water tanks at home and for residential waste water to be recycled into the region's dams.
"That's never going to happen in my time, it's too far outside of everybody's thinking," she said.
"We've already got all these dams that are empty – it's not dams that are the issue, it's something to put in them."
"Why are we using water once and chucking it out?
"And I tell you, I'm not going to back off on recycling.
"My view is recycling water is still the answer."
Bloggers comment NO Di Not for DRINKING the people have told you that but you take no notice. copied from Toowoomba Water Vote Site http://www.blogtoowoomba.com/?w=toowoombawatervote

CLIVE BERGHOFER SAYS VOTE NO

2006-07-28T03:54:00.000-07:00

CLIVE BERGHOFER SAYS VOTE NO IN HIS OWN NEWSPAPER
http://www.valscan.com.au/webpaper.pdf

2006-07-27T16:38:00.000-07:00

WATER FUTURES COSTS BLOWOUT
to a massive $73 million

NORWIN WATER IS CHEAPER Lasts longer

AVAILABLE NOW and is safer

Lasts 100 years could be up and running in 6 months

No Health Risks less chemicals used

Solves Toowoomba Water Woes

Lifts Restrictions

Not mixed with sewer water

Goes straight to MT Kynoch saves on pumping twice

Water futures fails to supply any additional water

1. Stops the flow creating a environmental disaster

2. Irrigators will sue council for 100's of million that will bankrupt this council

3. City Engineer Kevin Flanagan stated he alone calculated the costs on the other options with no independent assessment of costs have been made outside council WHY NOT.

4. Infrastructure Life 25 years then has to be rebuilt @ 22 million dollars

5. operating costs 1.5 million a year.

6. Membrame replacement max life 5yrs costing in excess of $600,000

7. Equipment Life 10 years

Deputy Mayor of Toowoomba abuse & threats to Toowoomba Resident Mrs Rosemary Morley

2006-07-25T03:01:00.000-07:00

Ramia's abuse and threats. (500kb mp3) here it here in full
Councillor Joe Ramia said he had no regets and meant what he said in threatening Rosemary Morley a Toowoomba resident a a No case campaigner for CADS more to follow as Cr Joe Ramia prepares his resignation which ha sbeen called for by the people But we don't need a declaration for this recording. It speaks for itself: Ramia's abuse and threats. (500kb mp3) here it here in full

Mary River residents say drink your own sewerage because it will save our properties their own skins

2006-07-23T18:19:00.000-07:00

Mary river valley residents at the request of toowoomba city council will man the polling booths with outsiders who want toowoomba residents to drink sewer water because this will save their own properties from being flooded by a dam. These mary river people and other outsiders will be handing out the YES vote cards on polling day. These outsiders wil be provided accomodation and meals by toowoomba city council at ratepayers expense.

Save the unborn from being exposed to recycled sewer effluent protect your children from harm.

2006-07-17T22:10:00.000-07:00

Do you really care about your children's heath and the health of your friends and family then don't let this six councilors force you to drink and bath in recycled sewerage effluent. Contaminates are absorbed through the skin as well as orally so what chance does your new baby have been exposed to water that contains unknown viruses and diseases. VOTE NO to filthy water SAVE your children now don't wait until it's too late. There is other sources of water available very clean water please don't allow this water to harm my children. Council will not guarantee it is 100% safe so why take the risk ? It is 6 councilor's whom seek to put your children at risk.
Six sick Councilors are trying to force this on you
please please as a pleading Mum say NO please

Did you know that this water futures recycled water CANNOT be used in any kidney dialysis machine because

2006-07-17T13:21:00.000-07:00

Did you know that this water futures recycled water CANNOT be used in any kidney dialysis machine because of the the salt and unknown organic substances in the water?
87% of voters did NOT know have your say vote at CLICK HERE for other questions also.

Mayor Thorley said if you don't want to drink recycled sewer water then go buy bottled water But can you afford it?

2006-07-17T03:16:00.000-07:00

click on image to enlarge

If You Vote YES Look At The PURIFIED WATER You WILL BE Drinking from

2006-07-15T19:16:00.000-07:00

WAter Futures the water cycle starts here

DON’T KILL YOUR CHILD this could easily happen by bathing your baby in water that is recycled sewer effluent.

2006-07-14T19:05:00.000-07:00

DON’T KILL YOUR CHILD this could easily happen by bathing your baby in water that is recycled sewer effluent.
The human skin is a sponge when it come s into contact with water it absorbs that moisture complete with the chemicals viruses bacteria with it, what chance does your baby have to fight off these germs that should not be present. No Mother would bath their children in water that had unseen unknown chemicals in the water.
Protect your child’s health VOTE NO to thorley’s plan and then we will get fresh clean water for our children.
Remember there ARE other water supplies she just won’t let you have them.
And yes and we do have the money to get them as well.
That’s 6 people telling 135,000 people to drink sewer water. Shouldn’t it be 135,00 people telling 6 Councillors what to do?
SO do you risk your Childs life? or do you make a safe choice to use clean fresh water.
Get rid of Thorley and her other five lost the plot councillors on the 29th VOTE NO
And vote them out next election as well.
Human life and health is the most precious gift of all, give your children a safe start in life VOTE NO they deserve the best not recycled sewer water.
Cheap risky costs will produce cheap risky outcomes.
You can save your children VOTE NO 29th JULY Pull the chain on Thorleys Plan.

If You Vote YES Look At The PURIFIED WATER You WILL BE Drinking from

2006-07-14T16:52:00.000-07:00

WAter Futures the water cycle starts here CLICK

THE WATER POLL QUESTION

2006-07-13T23:40:00.000-07:00

TOOWOOMBA CITY COUNCIL
BALLOT PAPER (QUESTION) Instructions HOW TO VOTE

IF YOU APPROVE PLACE A TICK [ ] IN THE SQUARE
OPPOSITE THE WORD YES

IF YOU DO NOT APPROVE PLACE A TICK [ ] IN THE SQUARE

.................OPPOSITE THE WORD NO
Councils question is
"Do you support the addition of purified recycled water to Toowoomba's water supply via Cooby Dam as proposed by Water Futures - Toowoomba?"

YES (please leave blank)

NO (please tick) and thank you for making a safer choice

PLAIN LANGUAGE VERSION IS
"Do you want to drink Sewerage effluent water from the back end of a sewerage treatment plant namely Wetalla filthy water full of disease and chemicals when cleaner water is available?"

Additional information
It isn't safe because we have to throw it in Cooby Dam first then look at the bugs, viruses and bacteria that we still have to identify and kill with more chemicals if possible. We may end up with Cooby Dam full of contaminated water that cannot be used. That would further reduce our water supply back to only (2) two dams what then?
Water futures does not solve our water problems.

Water futures water is NOT safe and has not been tested.
It does not provide any additional water whatsoever.
Under water futures we run out of water before it becomes operational it's madness.
Under water futures we will remain on level 5 forever your lifestyle gone and property prices will fall no one will buy where people are drinking their citys sewerage water.
Vote NO then the real options will be adopted that will give Toowoomba a sustainable water supply for 20-50 years.
Vote NO and we will get relief from water restrictions
Vote NO and we will be able to water our gardens once again and wash our cars
Vote NO and we will get clean water

Vote NO and show them who's boss no sewer water forced down our throats
Vote NO and tell treat us as lab rats.
VOTE NO WE CANNOT afford the $140 million dollar water futures project that is not available until we run out of water in our dams pretty dumb.
Vote NO so we won't be the human guinea pigs
VOTE NO PROTECT YOUR HEALTH AND THAT OF YOUR CHILDRENS FUTURE HEALTH

YES (leave blank)

NO (please tick) and thank you for making a safer choice

THE DANGER OF UNKNOWN CHEMICALS IN THE WATER (TRUE STORY) AND YOU NOT BEING TOLD.

2006-07-12T18:39:00.000-07:00

WATER AUTHORITIES LIES, COUNCIL LIES, COMPANY LIES
THIS TRUE STORY IS ALL ABOUT WATER. THE LOCATION right next door to ORANGE COUNTY USA.
Being that what the authority's might tell us just may not be the truth the whole truth and nothing except the truth. When reading this short narration just think of our own position in Toowoomba and what council is saying and doing to win you over. Particularly in the area of taste testing water that is NOT even the product you are going to get.
Please return to this sight on the 20th of JULY.
The DVD & VHS "ERIN BROCKOVICH" is available in most Video stores in Toowoomba.
The Title of the Below Case could easily be in the future PEOPLE v DETCM-HextaQILL
"ERIN BROCKOVICH"
(ANDERSON v PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC)STORY
CHAPTER 1. STORY PREFACE 2. DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IN THE MOJAVE
3. MISLEADING STATEMENTS 4. 22 YEARS LATE 5. THE COMPRESSOR STATION
6. TONS OF CHROME 6 7. PG&E POISONS THE GROUNDWATER 8. DECEPTION REIGNS
9. SEVENTY SEVEN PLAINTIFFS SUE 10. THE BATTLE 11. PG&E IS IN TROUBLE
12. TRIAL AND SETTLEMENT

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) was in trouble. Serious trouble. Four decades after the world's largest utility started dumping 370 million gallons of cancer-causing chemicals into unlined ponds in Hinkley, California, the company's actions had finally been uncovered. Uncovered by Erin Brockovich (a formerly unemployed, single mother of three working in a California law firm) who wanted to know what medical records had to do with a real estate file. What she found out led to the biggest settlement on record for a civil class action lawsuit.

ERIN BROCKOVICHCHAPTER 2 - DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IN THE MOJAVE
Many people and domestic animals in the high desert town of Hinkley, California were getting sick. Some had died. Since residents depended on the local groundwater supply for all their needs, were the illnesses somehow related to PG&E's Gas Compressor Station located nearby?On December 7, 1987 officials from the company advised the State of California they had detected levels of hexavalent chromium (chrome 6) in a groundwater monitoring well north of the compressor station's waste water ponds. The levels were ten times greater than the maximum amount allowed by law.Known as a cancer-causing chemical since the 1920s, chrome 6 is especially dangerous to lungs. Since many of the Hinkley residents were reporting respiratory problems, a link to chrome 6 contamination seemed possible.After PG&E reported the pollution to the government, company officials started a program to buy every piece of property in the community thought to be affected by the pollution. (That's what medical records had to do with real estate transactions.) It wasn't long before PG&E had 75% of those houses and buildings destroyed. The company reported it was merely responding to vandalism.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 3 - MISLEADING STATEMENTS
PG&E distributed flyers discussing the company's use of "chromium" to local residents. Nowhere in the flyer was there any mention of the type of chromium PG&E had used. In fact, one could make a strong case that carefully selected words were deliberately misleading: Chromium occurs in two forms. The form that is present in groundwater can cause health effects in high doses. The cleanup program, however, will result in chromium levels that meet the very conservative drinking water standards set by the EPA. In addition, the form of chromium that will be left on soils after irrigation is nontoxic. In fact, chromium in this form is a naturally occurring metal that is an essential ingredient in the human diet, one that is often included in multiple vitamin/mineral supplements.Reading these words, one could reasonably think PG&E's hexavalent chromium was almost beneficial. As the plaintiffs' trial brief wryly commented, the flyer might have invited a person to "sprinkle some on your morning cereal."Failure to properly identify the dangerous type of "chromium" it had dumped into the environment wasn't PG&E's only omission. The flyer made it sound like detection of contamination at the compressor station was a new development. It wasn't. PG&E first knew about plant contamination by at least 1965.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 4 - 22 YEARS LATE
PG&E records revealed people at the company were concerned about chrome 6 contamination of Hinkley's groundwater "by at least the summer of 1965." (Plaintiffs' Trial Brief)Investigating what PG&E officials knew about the contamination - and when they knew it - Fox TV (local channel 11) ran a series on May 23, 24 and 26, 1994. Here is part of the verbatim transcript contained in the court's file for the May 23rd report:Fox Reporter: What did PG&E know and when did officials know it? [PG&E Representative]: It wasn't discovered until 1987 when, through a routine environmental survey, which we do on all our sites such as this, the Company discovered it.Fox Reporter: But this man, Victor Moore, worked at the Hinkley plant for more than 32 years and he says that a fellow worker found the contamination in 1965, across the street from the plant.The Fox Reporter then relates additional investigation results: Fox Reporter: We wanted to talk to Moore's co-worker but the man has died of cancer. However Fox News has obtained PG&E test data on that same well, and it seems to back up Moore's claim. It shows that in September, 1965, PG&E found levels up to 400 times the EPA's current safety standard, and answers from a top PG&E official under oath for the current lawsuit, bolster that 1965 discovery date.Trying to understand this apparent inconsistency, the Fox Reporter pressed the issue:Fox Reporter: We asked [the PG&E official] to explain that apparent 22-year contradiction.He says PG&E senior management wasn't told until 1987.In other words, PG&E officials in Hinkley knew about the extraordinary levels of chrome 6 contamination, but senior management in San Francisco didn't?The suggestion that senior management in San Francisco didn't know what was happening at Hinkley for 35 years is the biggest lie of all. (Plaintiffs' 6/6/94 Trial Brief)Based on the evidence, high levels of chrome 6 contamination found in 1987 could not have been a surprise to the company, notwithstanding whether senior management knew. People and animals who lived in the area had been breathing, ingesting, and absorbing dangerous toxins into their bodies for decades.Why did PG&E use so much chrome 6 at the Hinkley Compressor Station? And how did that chemical travel from plant facilities into the bodies of people who lived nearby?

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 5 - THE COMPRESSOR STATION
Hinkley is located in the Mojave Desert, near the town of Barstow, California. It is not far off the famous Route 66, about 150 miles from Las Vegas. Surrounded by beautiful scenery, Hinkley is an important point on PG&E's natural gas pipeline as it travels from Texas to California.The purpose of the Hinkley Compressor Station is best described by PG&E in the flyer it gave to neighbors of the plant.The Hinkley Compressor Station was built in 1952 as part of the pipeline system that brings southwest natural gas to PG&E's service area. These PG&E gas lines serve Barstow and the surrounding area by delivering gas to Southwest Gas Company. The Station compresses one third of the natural gas required by PG&E's customers in northern and central California.The purpose of the Compressor is to boost pressure and to send the natural gas northward. As part of the plant's operation, heat is generated during the gas compression process, and the heat is removed with cooling water. The water, in turn, is cooled by the passage through cooling towers."Although this process sounds straightforward, operating just like thousands of other facilities with cooling towers around the world, PG&E did something else. Gas compression generates heat. That means the gas and the compressors have to be cooled with circulating water which, in turn, passes through cooling towers. To keep its cooling towers from corroding too fast, PG&E added a "corrosion inhibitor" to the cooling water from the day it first operated the plant. That corrosion inhibitor was chrome 6.When the cooling water became saturated with undissolved solids (like chrome 6), PG&E discharged some of it into unlined earthen ponds located at the compressor station. That wastewater is referred to as "blow down cooling water." The amount of toxins contained in PG&E's completely unpurified blow down cooling water is shocking.Even more shocking were the amounts of residue left on the soil after PG&E sprayed contaminated wastewater into the air. After the water dried, soil-containing chrome 6 was free to blow in the wind where it could be inhaled by living things.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 6 - TONS OF CHROME 6
In the flyer PG&E distributed to neighbors of the compressor station, the company talks about adding chromium to the cooling process: Small amounts of chromium were commonly added by industries to cooling towers to prevent corrosion and scaling."Small amounts" wouldn't cause neighbors who owned ranches and dairy farms to worry much. But here is how the plaintiffs' trial brief describes actual amounts used by PG&E:By 1966 an estimated 65 tons of chromate-based corrosion inhibitors were discharged into the unlined pondswhile the Sun's High Desert Bureau relates what those levels actually meant to the people breathing the air and ingesting the water:A biochemist said concentrations of highly toxic chromium VI in the groundwater basin reached peak levels of 1,000 to 5,000 times the safe limit for drinking water and more than 50,000 times the safe level for inhalation.PG&E didn't line the ponds until 1972. The company sent 750,000 additional gallons of chrome 6 wastewater every month to the ponds for another six years.Once the toxic material was in the unlined ponds, there was nothing to stop it from migrating to the wells that supplied nearby homes, farms and ranches.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 7 - PG&E POISONS THE GROUNDWATER
What happened to the chrome 6 once it was discharged to the unlined ponds or sprayed onto the soil? Following the normal process of nature, called the "hydrologic cycle," the toxic material (now called "the plume") was free to travel from where it was (in the ponds) to where it should never have gone (to the groundwater). Once it was in the aquifer that supplied Hinkley residents with all their water, nothing stopped the toxic material from getting into the peoples' wells. Wherever the plume traveled, the corresponding wells in its path were contaminated. When PG&E knew the levels of chromium 6 were high, how did the company interact with the citizens of Hinkley? What did they tell them about swimming in their pools? About bathing in their homes? About watering their animals and plants? Knowing full well how much chrome 6 the company had used for so many decades, PG&E told neighbors of the plant to ...avoid drinking your well water, but it is safe to use for all other domestic purposes such as bathing and watering animals and plants.It is difficult to comprehend how anyone could have made such a statement in light of the facts.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 8 - DECEPTION REIGNS
Before it issued the flyer, PG&E met with the people of Hinkley on April 25, 1988.During the meeting, defendant [PG&E] told citizens that there was "No risk at current levels" and "Generally, site groundwater is good and suitable for drinking and agriculture." (Plaintiffs' Trial Brief)Company officials made notes of the April meeting. They...arrogantly characterized the audience in internal memos as "Residents," "Local Politicos," and Tort Law Suits." (Plaintiffs' Trial Brief)Knowing the Water Board wanted a Risk Assessment to be completed:Defendant's Blackboard Notes for a meeting on the contamination blatantly state that it wants the Risk Assessment to support the lack of public health or environmental risk. (Plaintiffs' Trial Brief)It would be pretty difficult to reach such a conclusion when the pollution was so massive.How did PG&E officials respond to direct questions posed by the citizens of Hinkley who attended the meeting? What about the "green swimming pool water" at their homes? Was it safe for children to swim in green water? Here's how company representatives responded: Â· It was okay for people to swim in a pool where chrome 6 concentrations were higher than EPA limitsÂ· It was fine to swim in the pools because chlorine and other pool chemicals "kill any contaminants in the pool, including chromium"Â· The "water supply was completely safe and there were no toxic problems with their water."One official even "represented that he and his children would gladly drink their well water." As a result, the people of Hinkley who lived in the path of the contaminated plume continued to use the groundwater and remained on their property where they continued to be exposed to dangerous levels of a cancer-causing chemical.Until the lawsuit.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 9 - SEVENTY SEVEN PLAINTIFFS SUE
It isn't easy to uncover the truth about contaminated groundwater. No one from the polluting company is going to hand over documents containing proof of what happened. In a busy law firm, people are managing day-to-day issues on pending cases. The thought of starting a massive contamination case can be a daunting prospect.Law firms taking on such claims have to be dedicated and willing to front enormous amounts of money to uncover the smoking guns. People in the firm must be willing to give years of their lives to the case. Those same people also know they will probably experience "withdrawal" when the case is over - even if they win. It's sometimes hard to walk away from a big case that has been the main focus of a person's professional life.Erin Brockovich and her boss, Ed Masry, rose to the occasion. (Follow these links to see the real people, not the actors.) When 77 initial plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against PG&E in 1993, it was the direct result of a monstrous effort by this dedicated legal team. People who drank polluted water, and breathed contaminated air, wanted answers. As Walter Lack, whose firm took over lead responsibilities for the litigation, told the trial judge on January 4, 1994:They want to know the truth. That's really what they want in this lawsuit because they are dying, some of them. They want to know what was done to them as they grew up and raised their families." (P. 16/17 of court transcript)Some of the plaintiffs were upset because they believed PG&E did not respect them. As one of the plaintiffs told the Fox Reporter during the May 24, 1994 news report:They thought they were dealing with a bunch of dumb hicks, that's what I think.It takes little more than a belief like that to spur a group of injured people into action.Except, as PG&E claimed, not all the people were injured. It was one thing for PG&E to acknowledge its chrome 6 had contaminated the property around the compressor station. It was quite something else to agree the contamination had caused actual harm. Fear of harm - like fear of cancer - is not an injury. At least it wasn't before this case. (Anderson, et al v Pacific Gas & Electric - San Bernardino Superior Court file BCV 00300).And plaintiffs' settlement demand was hard for PG&E to comprehend: $250 million. Even the trial judge called it...a rather shocking sort of an offer.Turns out, PG&E would have saved a huge amount of money on settlement and defense costs had they accepted the plaintiffs' demand early in the case.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 10 - THE BATTLE
As lawyers for both sides fought, the case grew. Eventually 648 plaintiffs joined the lawsuit. (That did not account for all the people who had lived in the Hinkley area over the years - some of whom were not part of the case but are sick today.) The legal teams reviewed about 1 million documents and took several hundred depositions. As PG&E's own documents were starting to stack the liability decks against it, company officials received the worst possible news from the trial court. The "fear of cancer" claim (referred to as "preconception injuries" in the case) would go to the jury. PG&E had filed a motion to strike all claims for "preconception" injuries. Its lawyers had argued such injury claims were speculative. Maybe so (goes the argument for plaintiffs), but people who drank polluted water and breathed contaminated air get one day in court. Even if they aren't actually sick on the day of trial, how would they ever recover if they got sick in the future? Arguments like this are made all the time during trials. This time, however, the court's ruling was quite different:Public policy can rightly be said to be found in the concept that the public interest in a pure water supply gives rise to a special relationship to one who pollutes that supply in some substantial fashion. However, there may be no public policy to be served if the pollution occurs at a time and in a manner when no one knows, or ought to know, that the acts now complained of endanger the public. The existence of facts necessary to make the determination of any such special relationship, as well as the factual background to determine whether public policy principles should be applied, are triable issues best left to the trier of fact. (Judge LeRoy Simmons' Opinion, 6/13/94)Put simply, if PG&E didn't realize that its discharge of chrome 6 would cause harm to the public, it may not have violated public policy. On the other hand, if it knew - or should have known - the result would be different. Since it is the jury's job to determine facts - and the above issues are fact issues - the jury would decide whether plaintiffs could recover for such injury claims. Not a great prospect for PG&E. Any hope of a "cheap settlement" was eliminated when Walter Lack told the court and defense counsel:We are not going to go away for eight figures.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 11 - PG&E IS IN TROUBLE
By July and August of 1994, with the preconception win in their pockets, plaintiffs literally bombarded PG&E with six inches of motions to compel production of documents and more detailed answers to interrogatories. Their lawyers knew what they were doing; they had done the investigative background work; they were prepared; they knew their case. What they needed from PG&E were the details: The facts and figures of how much chrome 6 was used; how and when it was discharged; when the wells were first tested; how much concealment from the citizens of Hinkley was really going on. Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable that PG&E's lawyers must have gone to their client for a heart-to-heart discussion. Assuming such a meeting took place, it probably went something like this: Look. You folks are in a no-win situation here. You have contamination all over the place caused by a known carcinogen. You discharged tons of chrome 6 and it polluted the area. You knew it was "out" in wells by 1965. You didn't stop using it. You didn't tell your neighbors you were sending carcinogens their way. And then, when you finally DID tell them, you said it was okay for them to keep using the water for all purposes except for drinking. Well, it wasn't okay.Now you have given us this case to defend for you. Our only reasonable defense is lack of damages: not allthe plantiffs are sick - only SOME of them are sick. The rest are scared they're GOING to be sick. That's speculation, isn't it? Except the trial judge hasn't thrown it out as speculation. He says it's a jury question. Well, let me tell you what a jury is going to do with THAT issue after they hear how you dealt with your unsuspecting neighbors.So - let's see if we can get this thing away from a jury and into the hands of some arbitrators at Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services [JAMS]. At least there you'd have a chance of getting through this without ruining your reputation in the community and avoiding a verdict that will forever embarrass your company. It's interesting to speculate whether a discussion like that took place. It is more than coincidental, however, that by September 19, 1994 the parties reached an agreement to arbitrate/mediate. The agreement pulled the case out of the trial court - where a jury would have decided it - and placed it into the hands of Justice John K. Trotter and Judge Daniel H. Weinstein, two outstanding retired jurists. The case still had a long life ahead of it, but at least the parties had formulated a reasonable way to work through the claims of more than 600 people.

ERIN BROCKOVICH
CHAPTER 12 - TRIAL AND SETTLEMENT
Once the parties agreed on an orderly way to arbitrate the case, about 36 claims were tried. The arbitration trial took nearly two years. The plaintiffs' lawyers had to: Â· Prove medical causation Â· Deal with missing evidence that had been lost or destroyed Â· Reconstruct a complex hydro-geological water system Â· Prove the extent of PG&E's inappropriate conductAt the end of the arbitration trial, the plaintiffs reached a global settlement with PG&E which: Â· Compensated all the named plaintiffs in the amount of $333 million Â· Required PG&E to clean up the environment Â· Required PG&E to stop using chromium 6. The case has become a landmark for other plaintiffs whose "preconception" injuries would previously have been completely disregarded.The plaintiff lawyers did their homework. They weren't afraid to take on a monstrous case requiring mountains of work. They fearlessly took on the biggest publicly owned utility in the world and shook it so hard the company had no choice but to write the big check. But someone had to get the case started. Someone had to dust off a languishing file and actually DO an investigation. Someone had to talk to the clients and gather enough information to make everyone's "hairs stand on edge." Someone like Erin Brockovich is always needed to bring a giant to its knees.

NOTE: All quotes taken from the Anderson v PG&E case - Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, Barstow Division, File BCV 00300 Author: Carole D. Bos, J.D.
AFTER READING THIS REAL LIFE CASE STORY "Do You Believe That When Things GO WRONG (COUNCIL) Will TELL YOU? IS YOUR HEALTH WORTH RISKING. VOTE NO To recycling sewer water to drink on JULY 29
WE HAVE A "ERIN BROCKOVICH" right here in Toowoomba HER NAME IS
ROSEMARY MORLEY
SUPPORT HER WITH YOUR VOTE
SHE HAS GIVEN YOU THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO have a choice
something this Council doesn't belive in choice or fair play.

NOT one place in the entire world is drinking from the back end of a sewer plant at 25% mix NOT ONE.

2006-07-11T17:29:00.000-07:00

Go on name one and prove it at 25% - 29% mix!! There isn't One. Is it because they know it isn't a safe practice and have more common sense then to put peoples health at RISK.

Vote have your say on the Water POLL/SURVEY

2006-07-11T01:51:00.000-07:00

Vote have your say select the questions test your knowledge click link http://www.v4vote.com/browse.php

Reclaimed water is wastewater (sewage)

2006-07-06T16:42:00.000-07:00

Reclaimed water is wastewater (sewage) that has been treated and purified to be as clean as (or sometimes cleaner than) standard drinking water. It is frequently used to irrigate golf courses and parks, fill decorative fountains, and fight fires. It can also be used to irrigate crops, as long as they will be peeled or boiled before human consumption.
Benefits
The costs involved with reclaimed water typically exceed those of standard potable water in most regions of the world, where a fresh water supply is plentiful. However, in areas where supplies of fresh water are limited, treating wastewater for reuse is becoming an economically attractive option, because it conserves drinking water. This is why many cities in Southwestern United States make use of reclaimed water.
Reclaimed water is usually sold to citizens at a cheaper rate than standard drinking water. It also contains higher levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which help fertilize plants when used for irrigation.
Suitable for drinking?
Reclaimed water is not directly mixed with potable (drinking) water for several reasons: the extra filtering processes may remove minerals that are present in standard drinking water; humans may face psychological barriers against drinking reclaimed water (since it was formerly sewage); and small amounts of pharmaceutical chemicals may pass through the filtering process, potentially causing danger to humans. Because of this, many cities actually ban citizens from drinking, bathing in, washing cars or filling swimming pools with reclaimed water. Those who irrigate their lawn or plants with reclaimed water should place a sign on their property warning people not to drink from the irrigation system.

Safe Drinking Water - Guidance for people with severely weakened immune systems

2006-07-06T15:13:00.000-07:00

Cryptosporidium is a parasite commonly found in lakes and rivers, especially when the water is contaminated with sewage and animal wastes. Cryptosporidium is very resistant to disinfection, and even a well-operated water treatment system cannot ensure that drinking water will be completely free of this parasite. Current EPA drinking water standards were not explicitly designed to assure the removal or killing of Cryptosporidium. Many large water systems already voluntarily take actions for greater control of Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants. EPA continues to conduct research on microbial contaminants which will be used for determining priorities for the drinking water program, including setting future standards and re-evaluating existing standards.
Cryptosporidium has caused several large waterborne disease outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness, with symptoms that include diarrhea, nausea, and/or stomach cramps. People with severely weakened immune systems (that is, severely immunocompromised) are likely to have more severe and more persistent symptoms than healthy individuals. Moreover, Cryptosporidium has been a contributing cause of death in some immunocompromised people. Individuals who are severely immunocompromised may include those who are infected with HIV/AIDS, cancer and transplant patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, and people born with a weakened immune system.

Councillor ENGLART urged to have tests for lead

2006-07-05T21:17:00.000-07:00

Councillor urged to have tests for lead

TOOWOOMBA councillor Sue Englart has been recommended to undergo blood tests to check for lead poisoning. Concerns about her health arose during discussions on health issues linked with rainwater tanks. Lead flashing was used on house roofs and tiles back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Council officers recommend rainwater be disinfected before drinking. Boiling is the traditional form of disinfecting, but that does not remove lead. A slightly purturbed Cr Englart then put her own concerns into words. "I'm a bit worried; I ve drunk rainwater every day of my life," she said. Cr Michele Alroe joked: "That's why you light up at night." Mayor Dianne Thorley advised a blood test would determine any lead levels. Officers advised if lead flashings were found in a tank, then signs indicating the water was not suitable for drinking should be erected and the lead should be removed. Queensland Health hospitals have rainwater tanks, but authorities go to great lengths to make people aware of the potential hazards.
To combat the dwindling water storage levels council last October made it mandatory for all new buildings to have rainwater tanks. Last week councillors were keen to expedite retrofits of tanks across the city. Source http://www.thechronicle.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3691851 Bloggers comment: this might explain the lead affecting the brain, “in telling people to drink their sewer water”

Toowoomba City Council Wastes $1.1 million plus dollars of ratepayers funds and climbing fast

2006-07-03T16:11:00.000-07:00

$465,000 adverts & TV promotion YES CASE only plus $310,000 for the poll + $260,000 for public education $221,00 direct to a consultant firm starts with C. Now with have a excess of a million dollars that sort of money would have been better invested in free tanks for Toowoomba residents not wasted on local newspaper and Television adds. Then there is all the support staff wages being used for the yes case when they should be engaged in doing their normal work. Mayor thorley is responsible for the entire waste of these funds as it was her idea for us to drink our own sewerage water. (Oh I forgot that should be re-purified water ) but it comes directly from the bloody sewerage plant our own poo and pee reinvented, with the word purified. NOT one place in the entire world is drinking from the back end of a sewer plant at 25% mix NOT ONE.

WHY AREN'T OUR COUNCIL DOING THIS RING EM OR EMAIL THIS STORY TO THEM

2006-07-02T01:38:00.000-07:00

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,19645449-3102,00.html
Tank rebate topped up
Rosemary Odgers and Brendan O'Malley
July 01, 2006
THE State Government has caved in to mounting public pressure and announced a more generous rebate scheme for southeast Queenslanders who install water tanks and will also legalise above-ground greywater systems.
More than 60 plumbers will also be hired to advise residents how to reduce their water consumption and install water-saving devices, for only $20 a visit.
Less than a month after announcing cash rebates would be offered to encourage residents to install water-efficient appliances, Premier Peter Beattie yesterday unveiled a revamped and simplified scheme.
"The depth of the drought and the population density of the southeast makes it imperative that we offer householders in the region all the help we can to save water," Mr Beattie said.
Residents will not be able to profit from the rebate scheme, but those living in Brisbane will now be able to claim back expenses of up to $1850 from local and state governments for installing tanks of 5000 litres and over.
The Government has scrapped a previous condition that residents connect their tanks to plumbing in order to access their $1000 rebate and homeowners can install more than one tank to reach the 5000-litre level.
The changes will also allow residents to install water tanks solely to water their gardens and still have access to the rebates.
Under the reworked plan, a Brisbane homeowner who pays $2000 to buy and install a 5000-litre tank could claim up to $850 from Brisbane City Council as well as $1000 from the Government, leaving them only $150 out of pocket.
If they paid $1000 for the same-sized tank, they could claim back $850 from the council and then $150 from the Government, allowing them to break even.
The Government will also legislate to allow residents to use above-ground greywater systems, although details of this are yet to be finalised.
Water tank manufacturers were delighted with the changes to the rebate scheme, saying they would encourage more people to install a tank and more people to plumb their tanks for internal use.
"The Brisbane City Council rebate and the State Government rebate would pay for a 5000-litre tank and a simple installation job if you just used it for the garden," OZpoly Water Tanks business manager Greg Wong said.
Bluescope Water marketing development manager Scott Poidevin said retro-fitting a brick-veneer home with a tank top-up system would cost an extra $650 in simple cases.

Toowoomba Motorist Demonstrates NO VOTE on car

2006-07-01T23:45:00.000-07:00

Toowoomba residents have allready showed their opinion on the drinkinking of recycled sewer water by having tailor made signage placed on their cars.

Councillor Ramia exposed on as one Toowoomba's biggest water user.

2006-06-30T13:10:00.000-07:00

Deputy Mayor Joe Ramia makes it onto the "Name em and shame em" water user list.
After repeatedly saying that they use bore water at the companies owned by Deputy Mayor Ramia for ice, bottled water and soft drinks it now seems that is only half the facts.In addition to depleting the aquifers that Mayor Thorley is so concerned about for our grandchildren, Deputy Mayor Ramia also uses in excess of 10,000 kilolitres a year of city water with a bill in excess of $6,000.For a background to Deputy Mayor Ramia's conflicts of interest read Sales of Bottled Water - and the meaning of "Material Personal Interest"

[+/-] show/hide full article Source from http://www.waterfutures.blogspot.com/

SIX STAR WATER RATING WHERE DID IT COME FROM ? ANSWER IT WAS MADE UP BY AWA

2006-06-27T13:48:00.000-07:00

SIX STAR WATER RATING WHERE DID IT COME FROM ? ANSWER IT WAS MADE UP BY AUSTRALIAN WATER ASSOCIATION more details soon

Toowoomba City Council Deception Again Exposed

2006-06-26T14:53:00.000-07:00

Pictured is Ian Law one of Australian Water Association experts.
Toowoomba City Council FINE COTTON AFFAIR, OR EXPERTS IN CH2M HILL Clothing. CH2M Hill is the firm likely to build the sewerage recycling plant in Toowoomba AWA Members brought in from outside Toowoomba consisted of many who had direct connections with CH2M HILL with Ian Law one of the panel of experts, who had not stated or declared his interest in a prior answer to the same question being exposed as Appointed Australian National Manager for CH2M Hill in 1996. On WIN TV tonight Monday 26th June Members of the Australian Water Association say Toowoomba residents have the chance to act as trailblazers for the rest of country, if they vote to accept recycled water. A panel of experts coming together at the weekend, to address residents' concerns, and explain the science of reuse. IAN LAW CH2M HILL included.
Worth noting is Toowoomba City Councils Engineer Mr Kevin Flanagan is also a Member of the Australian Water Association.
Ian is widely known in his specialist field throughout the Asia-Pacific Region and specialises in the areas of industrial and municipal water and wastewater treatment, particularly advanced forms of reuse and biological nutrient removal. Ian joined CH2M HILL in 1996 from CMPS&F Environmental (now incorporated into GHD), where he was National Manager for Water and Wastewater. posted with permission of http://www.blogtoowoomba.com/?w=toowoombawatervote

VOTE on Poll/Survey on Toowoomba's water

2006-06-09T02:17:00.000-07:00

The first Survey poll with interesting questions for you to give your own opinion on with instant results.
http://www.v4vote.com/browse.php this link will take you direct.

RU486 in drinking water will potentially kill your Baby and Council haven't got a test to detect it so much for the Mayor's safe water.

2006-06-07T22:05:00.000-07:00

The FDA declared RU486 "safe" and "effective." Is it really? It certainly isn't safe for the baby who suffocates or starves to death. (34) And it strains credulity to label a drug that puts perfectly healthy women in the hospital and may not work nearly a quarter of the time"safe" or "effective." (35) Despite careful screening to eliminate all but the most physically ideal candidates, 2% of those participating in U.S. trials of RU486 hemorrhaged. (36) One out of a 100 had to be hospitalized. (37) Several women required surgery to stop the bleeding and some bled so much that they had to have transfusions. (38) In the broader, less regulated medical marketplace, outside the careful monitoring of a clinical trial, complications could be expected to be both more common and more serious, especially for those women who do not have immediate access to emergency care. (39)Mothers bathing your children and yourself showering in water that contains the drugRU486 are at extreme risk as drugs enter the body through the skin. Once the skin becomes moist it simply absorbs what it is in contact with, the skin is the sponge for the human body with are made up of 70% water now that's a lot of absorbsion given that 1 litre of water = 1kg of weight. Posted By: Jeffrey Utz, M.D., Neuroscience, pediatrics, Allegheny University Area of science: Anatomy Different people have different percentages of their bodies made up of water. Babies have the most, being born at about 78%. By one year of age, that amound drops to about 65%. In adult men, about 60% of their bodies are water. However, fat tissue does not have as much water as lean tissue. In adult women, fat makes up more of the body than men, so they have about 55% of thier bodies made of water. Fat men also have less water (as a percentage) than thin men.So you can see three possible reasons for the discrepancies you have found:1) Babies and kids have more water (as a percantage) than adults.2) Women have less water than men (as a percentage).3) Fat people have less water than thin people (as a percentage).A forth reason is that different people measure per cent water a little differently, causing small differences in the answer. SO what chance has your child got ? Get rid of these six councillor's before they get rid of your child. VOTE NO on 29th July

RU486 comes to Cairns. how long before Poowoomba?

2006-06-05T21:21:00.000-07:00

RU486 comes to Cairns. how long before Poowoomba? better get that test readyCairns doctor first with RU486Jamie Walker June 06, 2006QUEENSLAND women will be the first in the country to have access to the controversial abortion pill after a Cairns obstetrician revealed last night she had approval to make it available from next month.Professor Caroline de Costa said she could receive the first shipment of RU486 within days from a New Zealand supplier. She hoped to be treating patients by July after the initial batch of 40 tablets was cleared for importation by national drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). A delighted Professor de Costa said last night: "We are not going to be able to do this on a large scale under the authorised prescriber legislation. "But the fact that the TGA has said the drug is safe . . . and that we are permitted to import it says that this is a safe and reasonable thing to do." Professor de Costa said the drug would be administered at a private clinic in Cairns to patients referred by locals GPs. RU486 would be "substantially cheaper" than existing surgical abortion, with the two or three specialist consultation sessions required by most patients attracting a Medicare rebate of up to 85 per cent. The drug itself costs about $60 a tablet, Professor de Costa said. "A woman using this treatment will be at the most a couple of hundred dollars out of pocket." The State Government has assured the Australian Medical Association's Queensland branch that it will be legal for doctors to prescribe RU486. Abortion is unlawful under the State Criminal Code, but the courts have widely interpreted an exemption protecting the mother's physical and mental health. This allows doctors to legally carry out elective abortions, lawyers say. State Attorney-General Linda Lavarch said last night Queensland law authorised doctors to prescribe drugs approved by the TGA. "Queensland law protects doctors who act within the law," she said. But state AMA president Zelle Hodge said the association was now seeking independent advice to confirm that. Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott – who strongly opposed the conscience votes in Parliament that earlier this year stripped him of power to veto RU486 – last night declined to comment on the development. The licensing of RU486 was "a matter for the TGA", a spokeswoman said. Under the import licence granted by the TGA, Professor de Costa will access the abortion pill through a New Zealand company that had a pre-existing contract with the drug's French maker, Exelgyn. The TGA authority is for three months, but renewable. Initially, Professor de Costa will be allowed to bring 40 RU486 tables into the country. "It's symbolic more than anything at the moment," she said. RU486, or mifepristone, is generally administered as an abortion treatment within six to eight weeks of conception. This would be done at the private clinic of the Cairns gynaecologist with whom she was co-operating, Professor de Costa said. About 4 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are carried out with RU486 and its proponents say it is safer than surgical methods – a claim sharply disputed by pro-life groups which strongly resisted its introduction in Australia. Professor de Costa said she understood an overseas drug company was preparing to apply for approval to market RU486 in Australia so it "would then become just like any other drug".

JOHN DOWSON asks Is drinking from reclaimed sewage our water future?

2006-06-04T01:53:00.000-07:00

PAID ADVERTISEMENT in Toowoomba Chronicle Saturday 3rd June page 17
Is drinking from reclaimed sewage our water future?
The Chronicle article 19th May 2006 headed “Recycled drinking water the least of our worries”, requires a response: Why should we not worry about drinking recycled sewage effluent?
The article suggests the living habits written about apply to all people — not so. People do not have to eat hormone treated chicken, bacon and eggs or use Teflon-coated frypans, lollies, icecream and tomato sauce by choice. Drinking coffee from polystyrene cups, white bread, Coca-Cola and cleaning showers with “toxic” chemicals; also by choice.The latter of course ends up with thousands of other domestic, commercial and industrial toxic chemicals in the sewer, together with drugs that can be tested for and ones that cannot. The part about the drinking of milk and goldfish is so extreme that it does not logically advance the case for drinking recycled sewage effluent at all.Now the part about cigarettes was apt. Years ago, a long time in fact, people found smoking cigarettes a very pleasant, social and personal past time. Through the 30s to 60s more people smoked than didn’t or it seemed that way and the only question was whether you liked it or not and therefore a choice was made. Then came the suggestions that it was bad for your health, the manufacturers disagreed of course with medical opinion to that effect. Now it is a proven fact that smoking can kill you in numerous ways from lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, mouth cancer, liver, bowel and pancreatic cancer and the list goes on, all caused by drugs and chemicals in the cigarettes.It took decades for suspicions and warnings to become fact. We have a possible analogy here with recycled sewage effluent for drinking.We have an educator who may or may not have a conflict of interest claiming it is “very safe to drink”.Council’s manager of laboratory services Mr Alan Kleinschmidt was reported on 3rd May 2006 by Toowoomba Chronicle saying Toowoomba does not currently have an extensive testing program but they would “soon test for everything”, particularly if recycling was introduced. But tests for everything don’t exist.We have a mayor that says, “I am confident that this project is safe”. Page 4 Water Futures Toowoomba brochure.These statements can hardly provide comfort to a community expected to drink water recycled from sewage effluent. The domestic, commercial, and industrial chemicals, the drugs both from human waste plus what is directly dumped in the toilet, tubs and basins with regard to unwanted or out-of-date drugs both prescription and illicit together with the liquid waste from morgues, hospitals and the like, with all the things that should never be placed down a sewer via toilets, kitchens or laundries, ie solvents, paint acids and virtually any liquid that is in a home, garden shed or industry can all be there for Mr Kleinshmidt to “test for everything”.What about new drugs? For example RU486.Unlike cigarettes, with a water supply would we be told if the concerns of today became a reality in several decades? If so at what cost or would it be politically sensitive information? Shouldn’t the safety factor for human consumption be absolutely guaranteed now before implementation?The people of Toowoomba have not suddenly become selectively health conscious. The drinking of recycled sewage effluent should have been a choice from day one.If it had been left to the party of six (mayor and five councillors), we may not have been offered a choice or a voice. We can also be grateful to people like Councifior Shelton and his two associate councillors who stood their ground on the issue after proper evaluation time and voiced their doubts and concerns. Their stance together with people like Rosemary Morley, Snow Manners and Clive Berghofer alerted the Federal Government through the Prime Minister’s Department that all was not right up here and the people affected should have a say.Of course by insisting on a poll the Government will shoulder no blame if we vote yes and have problems socially, medically or commercially whether it arises in short time or over a long time.At the water tasting “pro-mo” on 20th May 2006, Toowoomba Chronicle reported the mayor saying, “do you think this Federal Government would give us the money if we were going to harm the community? There is no way they would go out and let us ruin the community’s health”.The fact of Federal Government funding is not evidence of thorough investigation and research (with conclusive results) into the safety of drinking recycled sewerage effluent. John Dowson, Middle Ridge.At the tasting of Singapore’s water the report said: “Water Futures Toowoomba only proposes recycling the equivalent of 25 per cent of the water supply” (from sewerage effluent) strangely there was no mention that Singapore’s water supply contains only 1 per cent of recycled water. A huge difference.We should be wary not to become confused or fail to see “the wood for the trees”, by council’s water testing promotions. Just because the water is clear and does not taste unpleasant, certainly does not mean it is pure or free from drugs or chemicals. Singapore buys its water from another country; its situation is totally different from ours. We should be aware that the Singapore govermnent does not afford its people that free and open democracy that we experience so, information is very restricted compared with our country.Governments, State and Federal must have been delighted to have a civic leader willing to submit a main inland city to this national and arguably international experiment of recycling sewerage effluent for drinking. This test case city becomes a political experiment. Should it be considered a failure for whatever reason, does a positive poll put the Government in the clear?I am sure in my mind both Governments would claim it was the people’s choice. Brisbane’s Lord Mayor was quoted saying Brisbane people would not be asked to drink recycled effluent, the Queensland Government has just announced two mega dams for Brisbane, however wants Toowoomba to recycle sewerage, why?The NSW Government is reported to have said there were unresolved issues with health with regard to recycling sewerage for drinking and WA is reported to be extending it’s testing for a further ten years due to health concerns.Six of Toowoomba’s civic leaders appear to refuse to accept that other options or a composite of options for the supply of additional water exists. Such a radical proposal will not fix our present water crisis; there is no evidence that it is irrefutably safe.The people who claim it’s a safe process are a mayor and five councillors (out of eight), paid council officers and consultants and possible self-interested parties.When tests for everything are not available, the risk is just not worth it for a city that has built its prosperity from conservative steady growth over a long period of time, when alternative options for real water solutions have not been explored properly.There is, I understand, scientific agreement that nothing is currently known about the affects on people of long term ingestion of very small quantities of any cocktail of drugs and chemicals from drinking recycled sewage water.Scientists from the EPA in the USA are on-going in their evaluation of more than 87,000 chemicals currently in use and drugs in their water studies, nevertheless Mr Kleinschmidt says he will be testing for everything!One thing we should carefully consider is if the poll returns a “yes” vote there may be no turning back on alternatives, if the drinking of recycled sewage water is not embraced by people outside Toowoomba and why should they? (No one else would have to drink recycled sewage effluent at this time), then our city’s days of prosperity and growth may be numbered.Without this any town will wilt as rates rise as a desperate council tries to support its operations, because infrastructure is no longer financed by development contributions and growth. With this, property values and tourism would drop and growth and development supporting businesses and industry would be forced to go elsewhere.The building industry, as large as it is in the town with its vast supporting infrastructure, must under these conditions grind to a halt together with many tourism-related businesses.Unfortunately it would appear that council refused to think outside the square they created.The real issue is the human consumption of recycled sewage effluent, not recycling.Recycle, but don’t put it in the drinking water and then virtually everyone would accept it. Of course there would have to be iron-clad, failsafe mechanisms to prevent accidental or deliberate inclusion of this water in our drinking water.As recently as the 31st May 2006 The Chronicle quotes council’s chief engineer Mr Flanagan saying council has no plan B if the electoral poll returns a no vote. Using costs as the sole reason for not having a Plan B to me is astounding to say the least.It appears to me Mr Flanagan must believe that cheapest has to be the best, If the yes vote succeeds and recycling fails (and remember it does not solve our present water shortage) for whatever reasons, Water Futures Toowoomba will be anything but the cheapest.The question we will be asked at the poll does not make any direct reference to what is to be recycled! The recycling of sewage effluent for drinking — the question merely asks, “do you support the addition of purified recycled water to Toowoomba’s water supply via Cooby Dam as proposed by the Water Futures Toowoomba Project?”.What is this supposed to mean? The question appears to be carefully designed to attract a yes vote by its generality and by not squarely informing the voter of the real issue they are being asked to vote on. Why?
John Dowson Middle Ridge.

Thorley says Brisbane and other towns and cities will join Toowoomba in drinking recycled sewerage effluent.

2006-06-02T16:04:00.000-07:00

Toowoomba Mayor Dianne Thorley said it now seemed "inevitable" that Brisbane and neighbouring towns and cities would be joining Toowoomba residents in drinking recycled sewage effluent. Click on link for full story
http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,19345128-3102,00.html

MAYORS FROM NEIGHBOURING SHIRES PRESENT BUT NO TOOWOOMBA MAYOR THORLEYor DEPUTY MAYOR Joe RAMIA, Englart, Alroe, Albion, Schneider missing also.

2006-05-27T01:18:00.000-07:00

COMMUNITY WATER MEETING IN TOOWOOMBA 27 th MAY 2006
SIX GUTLESS COUNCILLORS FAILED TO APPEAR SIX GUTLESS COUNCILLORS WHO WANT THE THE PEOPLE OF TOOWOOMBA TO DRINK THEIR OWN SEWERAGE WATER
More than a 1300 people after them including the city engineer Kev Flanagan & Allan Keinsmidt their so called experts.

PACKED TO THE RAFTERS NO CASE VOTERS

2006-05-27T01:09:00.000-07:00

SIX COUNCILLORS NAMES ON EMPTY CHAIRS ON CENTRE STAGE IN DIRECT SIGHT OF More than 1300 people came to the first community water meeting held at Harris town High School. Only 2 yes case supporters elected to speak which resulted in people leaving and turning their backs on them towards the end of the meeting but more importantly they were allowed to speak and were invited back again on center stage by Rosemary Morley to do so

Toowoomba City Councillors are asking Toowoomba Residents to Vote No at the Poll by Delivering the No Case " It's OK to Say NO"

2006-05-26T16:11:00.000-07:00

1. Water Futures means that the water you drink, cook with, wash your hair and clothes in, coming from all taps, including eating outlets and restaurants, will contain at least 25% water reclaimed from sewage at the Wetalla sewage treatment plant.
2. According to Council’s own consultants this ratio of 25% recycled water is high by international standards and will need detailed review and further studies.
3. Singapore uses less than 1% with similar technology but has the largest desalination plant in Asia for 10% of its daily needs. Nowhere else in the world deliberately drinks water reclaimed from sewage to the degree proposed by Toowoomba.
4. The technology is new and requires more testing. Cooby Dam has been designated by Council as a “living laboratory”.
5. CSIRO’s 3-5 year testing requirement after construction means NO WATER until 2013. What do we do in the meantime?
6. Water Futures will NOT solve current water supply problems. Water restrictions will remain in place or become more severe until rainfall raises the dam levels above 40% capacity.
7. There are no guidelines for drinking recycled water. Queensland Water Recycling Guidelines say “there are many man-made chemicals that potentially may be found in sewage and it is not possible at this time to set safe concentrations for all of these chemicals.”
8. Other Australian governments have rejected the option of deliberately drinking water reclaimed from sewage. NSW Premier Morris Iemma says “There are still unresolved issues with the health authorities” (ABC Radio, 8/05/06). If it is completely safe and routinely done around the world, why won’t Peter Beattie do it to solve Brisbane’s crisis? Why do they get dams?
9. Water Futures will only temporarily defer the need for a new source of water. Water supply in the form of new dams, bores or similar traditional sources will still be essential in the foreseeable future. Let’s do that one now.
10. Water Futures relies on New Hope Coal taking chemical laden wastewater to their Acland Mine.
11. Water Futures reduces water flows down Oakey Creek. Farmers recycle that water for irrigation and are threatening legal action to protect their livelihoods. There may be costs associated with compensation for those farmers adding to the cost and delays of the project.
12. Council hasn’t allowed public debate but has held closed, one-sided information sessions for selected groups. Without full information you would be wise to vote “NO”.
13. The Water Futures project was developed in secrecy. Trust is now missing.
14. Final building costs of Water Futures are not definite. The ongoing operating costs of the plant have not been properly calculated. The $68million costing will blow-out.
15. Water Futures’ main purpose is a demonstration for other cities. $3million has been allocated to build an education and marketing center of no benefit to Toowoomba ratepayers but of benefit to those marketing the technology to other cities.
16. The technology cannot remove all salts and chemicals from sewage. Water going back to Cooby Dam will contain unknown chemicals. It will not be pure.
17. Sewage contains synthetic organic compounds and new chemicals and pharmaceuticals are being developed all the time. How to remove them from water is still being studied. This should be done over a long period BEFORE deciding the water is safe for drinking.
18. Toowoomba shouldn’t have a water supply process that still needs testing. Any water supply for over 100,000 people should use tried and proven methods. We are not guinea pigs.
19. It is possible that demineralised water returning to Cooby Dam will damage that ecosystem. That effect has not been studied.
20. Drinking recycled water is not a generally acceptable thing to do. Toowoomba will be seen as having an inferior water supply by modern standards. This will destroy the clean and green image of the “Garden City” making it unattractive.
21. Businesses, industry, families, retirees and travellers will be discouraged from visiting, investing or living in the “Garden City”.
22. Food processors in Toowoomba will find their products unmarketable to the wider population. Some may leave, causing unemployment.
23. Council has been influenced by a large multinational corporation, CH2M Hill, to adopt Water Futures. CH2M Hill has already been paid over $140,000 for “community education” as well as consultancy fees. They stand to gain from the construction of the project.
24. Premier Beattie has announced an infrastructure fund of $1billion and has decided to build two major dams in south-east Queensland. Emu Creek Dam, near Toowoomba, would nearly double the city’s water storage if it was built.
25. The Government’s underlying report saying the safe yield of our dams has been exceeded has never been published, verified or even seen by Council.
26. Sustainable supplies of underground drinking water in the Condamine alluvium are being ignored by Council
27. A pipeline from Wivenhoe Dam to Cressbrook Dam, about 33km with about 175m lift is a viable option.
28. Water from natural gas fields is an option already taken up by Dalby and Chinchilla.
29. The closest and most immediate water supply is the Great Artesian Basin.
30. Recycling for non-drinking purposes is part of a safe solution. There are other uses for effluent that are more economic, sustainable and environmentally responsible
31. The $22 million drink-it-or-lose-it offer from the Federal Government puts unfair pressure on our community to accept a risky water supply option.
32. Why has Council voted itself $460,000 of your money to advertise their case only?
33. Water Futures will mean outdoor water restrictions forever to keep water within the cycle.
34. To deny your natural instinct and adopt untested new technology is foolish.
35. The tragedies of thalidomide, asbestos and mad cow disease were caused by the ignorance of the long term effects of new science.
36. A “NO” vote will ensure all options are properly examined and the safest solution adopted.
37. It’s OK to say “NO”, it is the responsible thing to do.
Authorised by Councillor Keith Beer 34 Cooloola Dr Toowoomba, Cr Graham Barron 28 Navajo St Toowoomba, Cr Lyle Shelton 5 Boulton Tce Toowoomba.

WATER POLL DEBATE

2006-05-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

WATER POLL DEBATE
Chambers makes accusation

The Chamber of Commerce is accusing Toowoomba City Council of abusing the democratic process in the organisation of the Water Futures poll. It's calling for a rethink on the way the question has been worded, also hitting out at Council's decision to fund the yes case only.

Deputy Mayor Ramia upset at Mayor Thorley's refusal to address public meeting.

2006-05-17T21:05:00.000-07:00

Deputy Mayor Ramia upset at Mayor Thorley's refusal to address public meeting.
This footage was never broadcast as it was far too sensitive.A real rift has developed in City Hall over the public meeting to be held Saturday May 27 at 2pm at Harristown High.Deputy Mayor Ramia urges Mayor Thorley to show her political will and address the public Water Futures meeting to win the support of the community. She doesn't have "the fortitudinal intestines"Secret film footage wmv 1Mb of the row at City Hall.

SIX Toowoomba City Councilors waste $465,000 of ratepayers money

2006-05-17T20:57:00.000-07:00

SIX Toowoomba City Councilors waste $465,000 of ratepayers money.
This money could of being spent on Toowoomba Hospice, Toowoomba Blues Nurses, Aged Care, Child Care, A New Library, struggling community groups but NO six Councilors decided to try and push their way through to force you to drink sewer water how disgusting is that.

Mayor's Misleading statement

2006-05-17T20:38:00.000-07:00

Toowoomba Mayor Cr Thorley said council supported the project, so it was up to council to go all-out to promote the project.
NOT QUITE TRUE three councilors do not support the drinking of recycled sewer water.